!!!!!!!!

In the minds of conservative Andy McCarthy, it’s pathetic for Republican Congressman Cao to vote for the House Health Reform Bill after getting something in return:

“Commitment from President Obama that he would work together to address the health care issues of Louisiana, including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals”

Yeah, how dare he, as a member of Congres who’s job is to work on behalf of his constituents, to demand something tangible for his support. Shame on Congressman Cao to play the “game of politics” Shame. You’re right, Andy this move is pretty pathetic.

[/sarcasm]

I don’t know about everyone but I think it’s pathetic for only one  house member out of the entire Republican Party actually voted “aye” for the Health Care Reform Bill. While the majority of the House Republicans voted no for two reasons:

1. Simply to deny President Obama a victory in some area in his agenda. (not political at all)
2. And in the belief of whatever obviously blatant lie that the enactment of the public option is the the slippery slope decline of America into “socialism” – or communism, fascism, whatever – and the eventual killing of grandma in “death panels”.

But that’s just my opinion.

Lesson of the Day: Don’t be a Douche.

Does everyone want to know why Mayor Bloomberg, despite spending massive and massive amount of his own money – only manage to squeak out a margin of victory of just a meager four percent?

Well, here’s thing: not everyone in the New York City Tri-state area likes to be bombarded with robo-calls every hour on the hour for the past three days reminding us on how wondering you are as Mayor, and your “so-called” record of putting “progress over politics”. Sometimes being an annoying little bugger doesn’t work very well in gaining support.

On a somewhat related note: Governor Corzine, admit it. You deserve to lose. Honestly, what was your message? Vote for me, because the other dude is fat? Really? Is that the best your campaign can think of? Even as die-hard Democrat, and also a human being, believe that’s one screwed up move.

Dear John Derbyshire

I’ve just listened to your interview on National Review’s Off the Page, and in regards to your statement about how you believe in ending women’s suffrage simply on the fact that women tend to be liberal, and therefore vote for the Democratic Party.

With that statement on the record, I might ask: Why stop there? Even if woman suffrage did end, there’s still a large segment of the male population who also vote the same way. If you believe women voting brings liberalism upon the country, and since according to you, that ideology is dangerous, it would make plenty of sense, thus to just end the voting rights of everyone who are liberal, or tend to lean in that sort of way.

I should also add, stating a point of view means you advocating it, despite your denial of doing so in the first place.

Sincerely,
Jackie Tam

Meh, Sarah.

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Ironically, Sarah Palin has no problem with old white men wearing fancy robes, dictated by a book written thousand of years ago by another group of white men telling them and everyone else what to do and how live their own lives.

I mock because I care.

Maybe in his today’s New York Times’ column, conservative Ross Douthat was referring to another place called Texas than the so-called “red-state model’s strengths” of the Lone Star state. Just like how in our country there are two Kansas City: Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas.

Lost in Translation: Libertarian-Style

Conor Clarke got it right: the misuse of the political term “socialism” or calling someone “socialist” on the right, is one of the reason why I canceled my yearly subscription to libertarian magazines like Reason.

It seems to me, according to many on the right, and the libertarian point of view believes in their core political ideology when faced with someone who is liberal will automatically deem whatever they say as “socialist”. All for the simple fact that those who consider themselves liberal believe in the use of government as means to provide the tools to American citizens to improve their own lives, and as in order to pay for it, taxation is necessary.

Sure, we can disagree on the amount of taxation, who should pay for it, and whether or not the government policy would be effective. I understand that, and that’s perfectly legitimate. But to say the liberal ideology – which a majority of the left would label themselves to be, then a progressives or a communists – is just socialism, works more as a scary tactic, and a quick way to score political points, versus winning the arguement on the merits.

Are we the American people are suppose to cower in fear over the labeling of socialism? Simply having a government policy that provides services for it’s citizenry is not socialism, nor does it mean America is on a slippery slope to it. Seems more like intellectual laziness, and contempt for the opposing side, than any sort of realization on what real socialism is versus, those policies being espoused by the left and the Democratic Party.

Call it liberal policies. Oh heck, you guys can called it leftwing all you want. But socialist? Far from it.

Ken Titus of American Politics.

Remember President Obama is Europeanish (ie. a wussy) because he manage to screw up his first pitch in last night’s all star baseball game, but yet Bush 43 is a real man, regardless of the fact that he was a cheerleader back in college.

Head cheerleader, to emphasize the fact.

On a more serious, non-sarcastic note: Must conservative turn everything we know and love into another battle in the forefront for the hearts and minds in American Culture War?

In the short term, I see them winning a few congressional and Senate seats back by pandering to the fears and anger of a small segment of the voters, along with the a strong turnout of the core Republican base. But in the long term, people from my generation do not care at all for this stuff. None of us are worried about the fear of the slippery-slop decline of heterosexual marriage if we allow gays to do the same, nor losing our nights sleep over the potential lost of our country’s  “so-called” Judeo-Christian heritage if we allow multiculturalism to exist, and evolution to be taught in our schools.

It seems like a waste of resources and also good will by investing on this strategy, when it seems in the end of the day they end up losing the support of a majority of next generation voters, just for a couple of seats here and there.