I am sure we all have our own separate views on the necessity of health care reform - how we go about it, what needs to be reformed, should the government be involved, should it be the priority, etc. So, in order to show the American people that he truly wishes for a bipartisan bill, the President has called a summit of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and Representatives, to try to devise a bill that everyone can agree with.
First, almost everyone can see through this charade. The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months. The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November. Besides, the administration has already developed a bill. They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.
Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes. They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters). They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time). They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it. After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans. They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.
Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill? What is so magical about bipartisanship? Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies. They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution. When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship. We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for. I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan. There is no character in that. Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate. Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.
Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care. This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote. The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running. Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote. When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).
If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench. However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.
Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis. In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay. The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator. They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval. They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants. A few years ago, debate was important. It needed to happen.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot. They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it. They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver. Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.' In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.
This is the problem with our elected officials today. They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent. We are finally starting to see a backlash. A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why. They do not listen to the people that they represent. Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough. And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Why are the liberals and media elites scared of Sarah Palin?
I have been trying to figure out for some time why there is such hatred for Sarah Palin. This hatred comes from liberals, media elites, political know-nothings, and even from some inside the Republican party. The ironic thing here is that the same people that hate Sarah Palin are the same people who are telling us that partisanship is killing the country and that we should seek to find compromise.
Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.
First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?
Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.
Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.
Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).
Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.
The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.
Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.
Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.
As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.
Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.
First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?
Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.
Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.
Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).
Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.
The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.
Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.
Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.
As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
President Obama vs. The Supreme Court
I did not watch the State of the Union speech last night. I had several other priorities. First, I was at church, where I am taking a Theology class (it is a 9-week course on the Trinity). Then, once we got home, we had to get the kids ready and sent to bed. After that, I watched the 2nd half of NCIS: Los Angeles, as I had fallen asleep Tuesday evening before the end of the show. Then, the season premiere of Psych was on. So I did have many other important priorities to attend to.
As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.
Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.
Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).
The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.
Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.
President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.
The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.
Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.
We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.
As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.
Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.
Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).
The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.
Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.
President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.
The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.
Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.
We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A re-birth of conservatism?
The people of Massachusetts have finally awakened from their lengthy slumber. On Tuesday, Scott Brown was elected by the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to finish the Senatorial term of the now-deceased Ted Kennedy. This is quite a remarkable occurrence.
Ted Kennedy held this seat for 46 years. He was first elected in 1962, and the people of Massachusetts continued to send him back to the Senate every 6 years. He was a liberal stalwart in the Senate. Yet the people of Massachusetts chose to send a Republican to the Senate to take his place. In fact, his home town of Hyannis Port voted for Brown.
Kennedy was a spokesperson for many liberal ideas, including health care. Scott Brown spoke out against national health care in his campaign. It is almost a slap in the face to Ted Kennedy that the person taking his place campaigned against the main piece of legislation that he fought for over the last few years of his life. Also, it is worth noting that the people of Massachusetts, who have health care from the state, voted Brown into office. Are they now saying that they do not like (or want) government run insurance?
Anyway, there are a multitude of reasons that the Democrats lost this seat. 1) They took it for granted. Who would ever expect a Republican (much less one who is sort of conservative) to win in Massachusetts? 2) The Democrats chose a candidate that was not that remarkable and did not run a good campaign. She almost seemed not to care, as though she was going to win by default (see #1). 3) Democrats like to govern by polls, but still have no idea what the public sentiment actually is. They continued to push health care even though the majority of Americans do not want it. 4) Because of this, Democrats think that people do not really know what they want. The party insists on telling us that they know what we want.
But more than this, Democrats do not realize that when liberalism is up against conservatism in an election, conservatism will win. Whether it was Reagan, or Gingrich (The Contract With America), or George W. Bush (in 2000), conservatism wins when it faces liberalism. McCain's campaign was doing nothing against the Obama machine in 2008 until Sarah Palin got on board. Unfortunately, there were Republicans in the establishment that did not want Palin, because she was too conservative, so they tried to undercut her. They wanted the Republican party to be more moderate, to be more like Democrats and gain independent voters.
So, look what happened to the Republican Party: they became the minority party. People are not going to vote for Democrat-lite. Why bother voting to change parties in power when no real change will happen? It makes no sense. Conservatives did not show up to vote or they voted 3rd party because of the moderates that were nominated to represent the Republican party. Many of the Democrats in the house won because they were riding Obama's coattails, not necessarily because they were remarkable candidates. All people wanted was change - they did not care what it looked like.
Now, after a year in office, people are starting to see that Obama is not what he was built up to be. He made promises that he could not keep. In many cases, he lied. Unemployment is up. People are being taxed. The deficit is growing. Government is taking over businesses. And people are tired of all of this. They got their change, but it is not the type of change they wanted. And they are now suffering from buyer's remorse.
So, is the pendulum now swinging to the conservative side? In my opinion, it is too early to know for sure. But this election, along with the governor's race in New Jersey, are a good indicator that voter's sentiments seem to be in the middle of a paradigm shift right now.
We do know that when true conservatism is on the ballot, that it can, and usually does, win. People still do believe in conservative principles. However, I do caution conservative leaders to take nothing for granted. That is how the Democrats lost the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Conservatives cannot put the message on cruise control. They need to keep the foot on the accelerator and push their conservative agenda to the American people.
Ted Kennedy held this seat for 46 years. He was first elected in 1962, and the people of Massachusetts continued to send him back to the Senate every 6 years. He was a liberal stalwart in the Senate. Yet the people of Massachusetts chose to send a Republican to the Senate to take his place. In fact, his home town of Hyannis Port voted for Brown.
Kennedy was a spokesperson for many liberal ideas, including health care. Scott Brown spoke out against national health care in his campaign. It is almost a slap in the face to Ted Kennedy that the person taking his place campaigned against the main piece of legislation that he fought for over the last few years of his life. Also, it is worth noting that the people of Massachusetts, who have health care from the state, voted Brown into office. Are they now saying that they do not like (or want) government run insurance?
Anyway, there are a multitude of reasons that the Democrats lost this seat. 1) They took it for granted. Who would ever expect a Republican (much less one who is sort of conservative) to win in Massachusetts? 2) The Democrats chose a candidate that was not that remarkable and did not run a good campaign. She almost seemed not to care, as though she was going to win by default (see #1). 3) Democrats like to govern by polls, but still have no idea what the public sentiment actually is. They continued to push health care even though the majority of Americans do not want it. 4) Because of this, Democrats think that people do not really know what they want. The party insists on telling us that they know what we want.
But more than this, Democrats do not realize that when liberalism is up against conservatism in an election, conservatism will win. Whether it was Reagan, or Gingrich (The Contract With America), or George W. Bush (in 2000), conservatism wins when it faces liberalism. McCain's campaign was doing nothing against the Obama machine in 2008 until Sarah Palin got on board. Unfortunately, there were Republicans in the establishment that did not want Palin, because she was too conservative, so they tried to undercut her. They wanted the Republican party to be more moderate, to be more like Democrats and gain independent voters.
So, look what happened to the Republican Party: they became the minority party. People are not going to vote for Democrat-lite. Why bother voting to change parties in power when no real change will happen? It makes no sense. Conservatives did not show up to vote or they voted 3rd party because of the moderates that were nominated to represent the Republican party. Many of the Democrats in the house won because they were riding Obama's coattails, not necessarily because they were remarkable candidates. All people wanted was change - they did not care what it looked like.
Now, after a year in office, people are starting to see that Obama is not what he was built up to be. He made promises that he could not keep. In many cases, he lied. Unemployment is up. People are being taxed. The deficit is growing. Government is taking over businesses. And people are tired of all of this. They got their change, but it is not the type of change they wanted. And they are now suffering from buyer's remorse.
So, is the pendulum now swinging to the conservative side? In my opinion, it is too early to know for sure. But this election, along with the governor's race in New Jersey, are a good indicator that voter's sentiments seem to be in the middle of a paradigm shift right now.
We do know that when true conservatism is on the ballot, that it can, and usually does, win. People still do believe in conservative principles. However, I do caution conservative leaders to take nothing for granted. That is how the Democrats lost the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Conservatives cannot put the message on cruise control. They need to keep the foot on the accelerator and push their conservative agenda to the American people.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Top Conservatives in America
For those who know me, I am a Republican. But I am not just a Republican, I am a conservative Republican. Conservative is the key word. There are many Republicans in this country, but only a portion of them are conservative. Anyway, I came across a list last week of the 100 most influential conservative voices in America today. I found it fascinating that this list is from the UK Telegraph. I am not sure why the Brits feel the need to make this list, but I do find this list amusing, given some of the names that they put on the list.
Here is this list (along with some of my thoughts):
Here is this list (along with some of my thoughts):
- Dick Cheney
- Rush Limbaugh
- Matt Drudge - Internet gossip guy - Don't know about this one, but he should not be ranked this high
- Sarah Palin
- Robert Gates - Defense Secretary - I have no idea how he made this list
- Glenn Beck
- Roger Ailes
- David Petraeus
- Paul Ryan - Wisconsin Congressman
- Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota Governor
- Mitt Romey
- George W. Bush
- John Roberts - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
- Haley Barbour - Mississippi Governor and former head of the Republican Party
- Eric Cantor - Virginia Congressman
- John McCain - I cannot believe he is on this list, much less this high on the list. Where are his conservative credentials (in areas not associated with national defense)?
- Mike Pence - Indiana Congressman
- Bob McDonnell - Governor-elect of Virginia
- Newt Gingrich - I don't think he should be this high on the list. He has strayed from true conservatism over the past couple of years.
- Mike Huckabee - The Gomer Pyle of modern politics
- Andrew Breitbart - Another internet news guy - He should be ranked above Drudge.
- Bobby Jindal - Governor of Louisiana
- Sean Hannity
- Charles Krauthammer - Columnist and political commentator - He should be on the list, but this is too high of a ranking for him
- David Brooks - NY Times columnist - He is the token Republican on the NY Times editorial staff. He is a Republican, not a conservative. He has no business being on this list.
- Mark Levin - He should be rated much higher, especially after reading 2 of his books (Men in Black and Liberty and Tyranny) this past year.
- Mitch McConnell - Senate Majority Leader
- Laura Ingraham
- Joe Lieberman - Conservative? Really? This is one reason the Brits are not a player on the world stage.
- Antonin Scalia
- John Boehner
- Karl Rove
- David Frum - Writer
- Michael Steele
- Edwin Feulner - President, Heritage Foundation
- John Bolton - He should probably be higher up on this list
- Tom Coburn - Oklahoma Senator
- Rich Lowry - Editor, National Review Online
- Mitch Daniels - Indiana Governor
- John Thune - South Dakota Senator (and the guy who beat Tom Daschle)
- Ron Paul - Texas Congressman - I do not believe he belongs on this list.
- Michelle Malkin
- George Will
- Clarence Thomas
- Grover Norquist - President, Americans for Tax Reform
- Dick Morris - Strategist - I do not believe that Morris is a conservative. He is an excellent strategist with incredible insight and instincts, but not a conservative.
- Michael Savage - This guy is an idiot.
- Mary Matalin (the wife of James Carville, one of the most liberal idiots in the U.S.)
- Richard Lugar - Indiana Senator - He is too friendly with liberals, including the current administration.
- Carly Fiorina - Former head of HP and current contender for Barbara Boxer's senate seat - It is too early to tell on this one.
- Rick Perry - Texas Governor
- David Keene
- Kevin McCarthy - California Congressman
- Morton Blackwell
- Arnold Schwarzenegger - Conservative? He threw out any and all conservatism a long time ago.
- Alex Castellanos
- Steve Schmidt
- William Kristol
- Rudy Giuliani - Conservative on national defense and fiscal areas, liberal on social issues.
- Jon Voight - Actor
- Jeff Flake - Arizona Congressman
- Frank Luntz
- Jim DeMint - South Carolina Senator
- Chris Ruddy - Newsmax Founder and CEO
- Erick Erickson
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Joe Scarborough - This guy is an insult to conservatives and Republicans. He has thrown us under the bus after joining MSNBC, and he tries to redefine conservatism in his book.
- Paul Gigot
- Olympia Snowe - This one is laughable. She is the most liberal Republican in the Senate. She is practically a Democrat vote.
- Michael Barone - He has tremendous political insight. I do not think of him as a conservative, but rather a political wonk.
- Dick Armey
- Tucker Carlson
- Judd Gregg - New Hampshire Senator
- Ann Coulter
- James Dobson
- Jeb Bush
- Joe Wilson - South Carolina Congressman, famous for the "You Lie!" comment (which, by the way, was right on target)
- Meg Whitman - California gubernatorial candidate
- Lou Dobbs - More of a populist than a conservative
- Michelle Bachmann - Minnesota Congresswoman - She should probably be ranked higher, as she is one of the few Republicans who will actually stand up to the Democrat establishment.
- Marco Rubio - Florida Senatorial candidate
- Jack Keane
- Lindsey Graham - South Carolina Senator - He has become very moderate, and he backs amnesty for illegal aliens. He should not be on this list.
- Thomas Sowell
- Bill O'Reilly - Like Lou Dobbs, he is a populist, not a conservative.
- John Kasich - Ohio Gubernatorial candidate and former congressman
- Eric Odom
- Patriuck Ruffini
- Fred Thompson
- Tony Perkins
- Peggy Noonan - She should not be on this list. Just because she was a speech writer for Reagan does not give her the credentials to be on this list.
- Clifford May
- Charlie Crist - Florida Governor - He is becoming too moderate in order to win Florida Governor race.
- Jon Huntsman Jr.
- Liz Cheney
- R. Emmett Tyrrell
- Mark Thiessen
- Mike Murphy
- Tom DeLay
- Mark Sanford - South Carolina Governor - Really?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
What should Harry Reid do?
By now, everyone is most likely familiar with some words spoken last year by Sen. Harry Reid concerning then-candidate Barack Obama. To paraphrase, Sen. Reid indicated that Obama was a light-skinned person who spoke with no 'negro dialect.' Many Republicans are calling for him to resign, while many Democrats are standing behind him.
First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?
Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.
To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.
First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?
Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.
To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Liberals need to learn how to think and stop letting other think for them
In yesterday's (12/30/09) Harrisburg Patriot News, I was taken to task for an editorial that I submitted a few weeks ago. My editorial (which was extremely well-written and a work of conservative genius) was in response to an editorial by someone named Billy Carelock, a man I have never met. He basically called out conservatives and Republicans for disagreeing with the sitting President and that we should give him time to fix things. We should also stop being disrespectful (at least, that is how he saw disagreements with this President and his policies).
Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.
Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.
He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.
Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.
Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.
He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.
- His compassion for Americans without health care - Well, it is not the government's duty to supply health care to everyone. Let's get our emotions out of this argument and look to the U.S. Constitution. Health care is not an inalienable right. If anything, the government should be removing impediments to health care companies so that they can be competitive and affordable. The government should stop adding regulations and allowing frivolous lawsuits (which is something they never want to eliminate, for fear of angering the ABA). Government needs to get out of the way.
- His success in averting a depression - Not sure where Mr. Peracchia is coming from on this one. We would have pulled out of this economic downturn months ago had Congress and the President allowed the business cycle to run its course. Government intervention is not a good thing. It only keeps perpetuating the problem. Now, the government owns a car company and is trying to control even more industries. This is not good for democracy (remember, this kind of control didn't work for the USSR, Eastern Europe, and it is not working in Venezuela or Cuba).
- His efforts to restore credibility in the world - We are the world leader in almost everything. Even though other countries are jealous of that and want to see us fail, they know where to go when facing a crisis - the U.S.A. We provide relief, but are never thanked for it. We provide money and food, yet no one acknowledges us for it. We are taken for granted, and the President can't help but apologize enough for our greatness. Credibility in the world is very overrated. We will never get the credit from these 'friends', but they will have their hand in our pocket any chance they get.
- His ideals on corporate greed - Corporate greed is a problem and it needs to be fixed. However, it is not a systemic problem. It is a person problem. Greed happens because there are corrupt people. The system itself is fine. So because of a perceived problem, the President needs to appoint all kinds of czars to control things? Who is the greedy one here? I believe that the President is the greedy one here, trying to seize as much power as possible.
- His principles to redirect more equitably our nation's wealth to deserving workers - This is, by definition, Socialism. So now we have American citizens hoping and praying that socialism is instituted in our country. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. You punish hard-working people by taking from what they earn and giving it to people that do not work as hard or do not work at all. Are people really this stupid?
- His concern for the poor and undereducated Americans - Whose fault is it that people are undereducated? We give them a free education in our public school system. Is it my fault they do not take advantage of it. Is it my fault that people do not avail themselves of this free education in order to study and get a better job? I don't think so. This is the problem with the government. The more money they sink into the public education system, the worse it gets. Yet, all these liberals are holding on, hoping it will get better someday. Oh, and by the way, this is why liberals exist today. The school systems of America are not doing their jobs, and they are teaching people what to think, not how to think.
- His Nobel Prize award - This was purely political in nature, and it had nothing to do with his effectiveness in leading the country. This award marks the point where the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the proverbial shark.
I am not going to give this President 4 years to ruin our country. I will speak out against him and his policies (but not insult him personally, as liberals did to President Bush) when I do not agree with him, which will probably be most of the time (although, I may need to insult liberals as a group for their inability to think outside of their talking points). Liberals said that speaking out against our President (while Bush was President) was the hallmark of democracy. Well, the criticism goes both ways. Liberals need to stop being the thin-skinned, shallow, hypocritical fools and they need to start using the brain that God created them with.
Monday, December 14, 2009
My Beloved Son: A Christmas Drama
This coming Sunday, December 20, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA, will be presenting a Christmas Drama titled My Beloved Son. This program will present the story of Christmas from the viewpoint of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus. This drama will be presented at 8:30 am, 10:30 am, and 6:30 pm.
You are all invited to attend, and we would look forward to having you visit with us for this presentation of My Beloved Son. If you need directions, you can click here. I look forward to seeing you there.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Will Jon and Kate just go away?
"They got what they wanted. But they lost what they had."
I first heard this uttered probably 25 years ago by a preacher by the name of Dr. Bud Bierman. He used this as a title of one of his sermons. I can't say I recall many sermons from that part of my life, but this one still rings out loud and clear. While I do not remember his specific examples, I still remember this line that he used multiple times, and the message that he meant to convey by it.
Dr. Bierman spoke of many examples of so-called Christians who gave into the excesses of life on this earth for personal pleasure, emotional pleasure, monetary gain, or some other selfish desire. They gave up up what they had, whether it was a good family life, a good job, a spiritual foundation in their life. They gave it away in order that they could have some kind of temporary gain, bringing pleasure to them in the flesh. However, in so-doing, they gave up the good things that they had in their own life. These pleasures, or lusts, took over their lives so that it basically destroyed them and what they had.
I see this same scenario now in the lives of Jon & Kate Gosselin. I understand that having children brings change to a family, much less having sextuplets. However, they decided to use this situation to bring fame and fortune to themselves. They have been on TV, now, for several years, making a name for themselves at the expense of the family unit.
What really bothers me is that both of these folks claimed (and may still claim) to be Christians. However, nothing in their actions would prove that to me. Yet, many Christians looked to these two people as heroes, as examples of what good parents should be like.
Why would we want these folks as examples for our families today? They gave up the privacy of their home for the sake of fame and fortune. They gave up family time with their kids so they could film a 'reality' TV show at their home basically every day. They had cameras following them everywhere. They were manipulative in their actions toward each other. They aired their dirty laundry on television rather than working out marital difficulties in private. Both were rumored to have affairs before they split up.
Is this really the example we want to put in front of our kids? Are we now telling our children that this is a desired outcome, something that we would like to attain? Is this even entertainment? What is so attractive about this family?
Now the show has come to an end. Jon does not want his kids being followed around by cameras anymore. He has now become the conscientious father, saying that this violates child labor laws. It is funny how he notices this now, since the network wanted to move ahead without him in the show. It is also ironic that he is playing the morally upright one in doing what is right for the kids while he has been out partying and dating younger women, even though he is not even yet divorced from Kate.
And speaking of Kate, she is not the innocent party here. From what I have read, she is difficult to live with, and to deal with. She had everything where she wanted it. She had the attention on her. She was getting pampered. She wanted everyone to think she was such a great mommy to her kids, while she had nannies doing the work for her. She was too busy travelling and doing the show to give the kids the attention that they needed and deserved.
So now, I say go away. You had your 15 minutes of fame. I hope you learned your lesson, but I doubt it. Jon seems to be content making tabloid headlines. Kate is trying to work out a deal for a new reality show. When are you guys going to realize that those kids are going to be adversely affected by all of this? Or have you forgotten them? If you are going to keep living this lifestyle, there is nothing we can do to stop them. The only thing I ask is that they stop claiming some sort of spirituality. They do not have any. It is all about them.
Perhaps they would be good to read and understand the words of Jim Elliot: "He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
I first heard this uttered probably 25 years ago by a preacher by the name of Dr. Bud Bierman. He used this as a title of one of his sermons. I can't say I recall many sermons from that part of my life, but this one still rings out loud and clear. While I do not remember his specific examples, I still remember this line that he used multiple times, and the message that he meant to convey by it.
Dr. Bierman spoke of many examples of so-called Christians who gave into the excesses of life on this earth for personal pleasure, emotional pleasure, monetary gain, or some other selfish desire. They gave up up what they had, whether it was a good family life, a good job, a spiritual foundation in their life. They gave it away in order that they could have some kind of temporary gain, bringing pleasure to them in the flesh. However, in so-doing, they gave up the good things that they had in their own life. These pleasures, or lusts, took over their lives so that it basically destroyed them and what they had.
I see this same scenario now in the lives of Jon & Kate Gosselin. I understand that having children brings change to a family, much less having sextuplets. However, they decided to use this situation to bring fame and fortune to themselves. They have been on TV, now, for several years, making a name for themselves at the expense of the family unit.
What really bothers me is that both of these folks claimed (and may still claim) to be Christians. However, nothing in their actions would prove that to me. Yet, many Christians looked to these two people as heroes, as examples of what good parents should be like.
Why would we want these folks as examples for our families today? They gave up the privacy of their home for the sake of fame and fortune. They gave up family time with their kids so they could film a 'reality' TV show at their home basically every day. They had cameras following them everywhere. They were manipulative in their actions toward each other. They aired their dirty laundry on television rather than working out marital difficulties in private. Both were rumored to have affairs before they split up.
Is this really the example we want to put in front of our kids? Are we now telling our children that this is a desired outcome, something that we would like to attain? Is this even entertainment? What is so attractive about this family?
Now the show has come to an end. Jon does not want his kids being followed around by cameras anymore. He has now become the conscientious father, saying that this violates child labor laws. It is funny how he notices this now, since the network wanted to move ahead without him in the show. It is also ironic that he is playing the morally upright one in doing what is right for the kids while he has been out partying and dating younger women, even though he is not even yet divorced from Kate.
And speaking of Kate, she is not the innocent party here. From what I have read, she is difficult to live with, and to deal with. She had everything where she wanted it. She had the attention on her. She was getting pampered. She wanted everyone to think she was such a great mommy to her kids, while she had nannies doing the work for her. She was too busy travelling and doing the show to give the kids the attention that they needed and deserved.
So now, I say go away. You had your 15 minutes of fame. I hope you learned your lesson, but I doubt it. Jon seems to be content making tabloid headlines. Kate is trying to work out a deal for a new reality show. When are you guys going to realize that those kids are going to be adversely affected by all of this? Or have you forgotten them? If you are going to keep living this lifestyle, there is nothing we can do to stop them. The only thing I ask is that they stop claiming some sort of spirituality. They do not have any. It is all about them.
Perhaps they would be good to read and understand the words of Jim Elliot: "He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Thursday, November 19, 2009
It's Time To Get Rid of Salary Caps in Sports
Even before the Yankees won their 27th World Series a few weeks ago, the cries were coming out from all corners of the U.S. that the Yankees bought their way to another World Series title. Apparently, money buys championships, talent will not win them for you.
I find it amusing that the Yankees had the highest payroll every year over the last decade, yet they did not win a World Series title. Many teams over the years have spent big money on high profile free agents, and they have not been successful, with the Yankees included in this group. Spending money does not win championships. The way your players perform on the field wins championships.
Many fans of baseball think that there ought to be a salary cap. They point to sports like football and basketball that already have salary caps as examples for how it should be done. These sports have parity. They are not dominated by big market teams that have more money to spend. Each team is only allowed to spend a certain dollar amount on players.
But these points look beyond the basic reason for the salary cap - to try to make the bad teams better and to try to make the good teams worse. The salary cap is basically forced mediocrity. By instituting a salary cap, the league is saying that they do not want teams to excel. They do not want franchises to excel.
I do not think that forced parity is a good thing. I think that the free market is a good thing. Salary caps in sports amount to socialism - an attempt by the league to put everyone on the same level playing field without allowing any one team to get too far ahead of the others. It does not allow for franchises to spend their revenue on making their team better. In fact, it forces teams that spend too much money to give money to lesser teams in order to help bring them up to a better level. However, there is nothing in place that forces those lesser teams to spend money on actually making their franchise better (kind of sounds like many government programs today).
Let us not forget that these franchises are businesses. The people that own the teams are looking to be profitable. They do not want to simply break even - that would not be a wise investment if this were their only goal. What would Wal-Mart do if they were forced to give some of their profit to the likes of K-Mart and Target? After all, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer, with K-Mart and Target coming in way behind them in total sales. If we used the logic many are using in sports, then we would need to reign in Wal-Mart, not allowing them to expand, and forcing them to give money to their competitors in order to help pull them up to Wal-Mart's level.
This is just ludicrous. And I doubt that any company out there would want to give their hard-earned profits over to their competition in order to level out the playing field. The government may want businesses to do this, but the businesses definitely want no part of this.
And why should be castigate teams like the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, teams like the Red Sox, Angels, and Dodgers) for spending money to make their teams better? I would much rather work for a company that is willing to invest in the people that work for them in order to make that company stronger, more viable in the marketplace, and successful against the competition. Maybe that is why players are willing to sign with the Yankees - because the Yankees understand what it takes to be successful. Yes, they are in the biggest market. Yes, they do make a lot of money. But they want their team to be the best.
And they also pay a very large amount to other teams in the form of a Luxury Tax. Why don't we go to the teams receiving that money to find out how they are spending it. Are they spending it on players to make their teams better? Or are they putting it in their pocket? My guess is the latter.
The argument is made that people will not attend games if the stars are not playing on those teams. While this may be true, one must look at why these teams have no stars. The Montreal Expos traded their stars away. The Pittsburgh Pirates seem to trade their stars away, as do other teams. They are not investing in high dollar contracts with their up-and-coming stars. They say they do not have the money, or they give some other lame excuse. Maybe if they did sign one or two of these stars, then people would come to games, which would enhance revenue. Maybe they would start winning, which would drive more people to come to games.
Small market teams can be successful. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals are good examples of this. They put competitive teams on the field and people attend their games. It can be done. Maybe other small market teams need to look at these franchises, take notes, and implement some of the same things to make their teams better.
One other thing that proponents of the salary cap point to as a benefit is parity. Why is this good? Why must different teams win the title each year? What is wrong with a dynasty? What is wrong with a team having continued success year-after-year-after-year? The ultimate goal is excellence, not mediocrity.
It all boils down to this - As a society, we have become so accustomed to our government always trying to level the playing field through government programs that we no longer view this as wrong. The government wants businesses to pay more because they are successful and profitable (e.g. oil companies). We see in society that successful people are being taxed more because they are supposed to be able to afford it. People who are not working and not trying to work are given a handout, without really ever being told how to be successful and make something out of their lives. We have created a society where class envy has reached the point that we want to take from the rich in order to give to the poor, and many people see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they encourage it.
And now sports is becoming a microcosm of society. We do not want to see the successful continue to be successful. We want the underachievers to succeed, but only at the expense of the successful. If teams are losing money and not being successful, why should they be bailed out? After all, weren't many people upset (and rightfully so) when our government bailed out financial institutions and automobile manufacturers? Where is that same anger now?
I find it amusing that the Yankees had the highest payroll every year over the last decade, yet they did not win a World Series title. Many teams over the years have spent big money on high profile free agents, and they have not been successful, with the Yankees included in this group. Spending money does not win championships. The way your players perform on the field wins championships.
Many fans of baseball think that there ought to be a salary cap. They point to sports like football and basketball that already have salary caps as examples for how it should be done. These sports have parity. They are not dominated by big market teams that have more money to spend. Each team is only allowed to spend a certain dollar amount on players.
But these points look beyond the basic reason for the salary cap - to try to make the bad teams better and to try to make the good teams worse. The salary cap is basically forced mediocrity. By instituting a salary cap, the league is saying that they do not want teams to excel. They do not want franchises to excel.
I do not think that forced parity is a good thing. I think that the free market is a good thing. Salary caps in sports amount to socialism - an attempt by the league to put everyone on the same level playing field without allowing any one team to get too far ahead of the others. It does not allow for franchises to spend their revenue on making their team better. In fact, it forces teams that spend too much money to give money to lesser teams in order to help bring them up to a better level. However, there is nothing in place that forces those lesser teams to spend money on actually making their franchise better (kind of sounds like many government programs today).
Let us not forget that these franchises are businesses. The people that own the teams are looking to be profitable. They do not want to simply break even - that would not be a wise investment if this were their only goal. What would Wal-Mart do if they were forced to give some of their profit to the likes of K-Mart and Target? After all, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer, with K-Mart and Target coming in way behind them in total sales. If we used the logic many are using in sports, then we would need to reign in Wal-Mart, not allowing them to expand, and forcing them to give money to their competitors in order to help pull them up to Wal-Mart's level.
This is just ludicrous. And I doubt that any company out there would want to give their hard-earned profits over to their competition in order to level out the playing field. The government may want businesses to do this, but the businesses definitely want no part of this.
And why should be castigate teams like the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, teams like the Red Sox, Angels, and Dodgers) for spending money to make their teams better? I would much rather work for a company that is willing to invest in the people that work for them in order to make that company stronger, more viable in the marketplace, and successful against the competition. Maybe that is why players are willing to sign with the Yankees - because the Yankees understand what it takes to be successful. Yes, they are in the biggest market. Yes, they do make a lot of money. But they want their team to be the best.
And they also pay a very large amount to other teams in the form of a Luxury Tax. Why don't we go to the teams receiving that money to find out how they are spending it. Are they spending it on players to make their teams better? Or are they putting it in their pocket? My guess is the latter.
The argument is made that people will not attend games if the stars are not playing on those teams. While this may be true, one must look at why these teams have no stars. The Montreal Expos traded their stars away. The Pittsburgh Pirates seem to trade their stars away, as do other teams. They are not investing in high dollar contracts with their up-and-coming stars. They say they do not have the money, or they give some other lame excuse. Maybe if they did sign one or two of these stars, then people would come to games, which would enhance revenue. Maybe they would start winning, which would drive more people to come to games.
Small market teams can be successful. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals are good examples of this. They put competitive teams on the field and people attend their games. It can be done. Maybe other small market teams need to look at these franchises, take notes, and implement some of the same things to make their teams better.
One other thing that proponents of the salary cap point to as a benefit is parity. Why is this good? Why must different teams win the title each year? What is wrong with a dynasty? What is wrong with a team having continued success year-after-year-after-year? The ultimate goal is excellence, not mediocrity.
It all boils down to this - As a society, we have become so accustomed to our government always trying to level the playing field through government programs that we no longer view this as wrong. The government wants businesses to pay more because they are successful and profitable (e.g. oil companies). We see in society that successful people are being taxed more because they are supposed to be able to afford it. People who are not working and not trying to work are given a handout, without really ever being told how to be successful and make something out of their lives. We have created a society where class envy has reached the point that we want to take from the rich in order to give to the poor, and many people see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they encourage it.
And now sports is becoming a microcosm of society. We do not want to see the successful continue to be successful. We want the underachievers to succeed, but only at the expense of the successful. If teams are losing money and not being successful, why should they be bailed out? After all, weren't many people upset (and rightfully so) when our government bailed out financial institutions and automobile manufacturers? Where is that same anger now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)