A Voice in the Wilderness In Defense of "Mere Conservatism"

Robert J. Moeller
December 14th, 2006 - 09:58

Oliver-
I appreciate the kind words, and that you love to have your picture taken by dudes, but I know what I am saying here is right (no pun). The only thing more unbearable than the team your foot for in the NFL is that you would disagree with my conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama is as qualified to be President (and deserving of our respect) as I am qualified to charter the Nancy Pelosi Fan Club.

Obama has spent 7 years in the State Senate of Illinois (about as prestigious as being in charge of Fairlane) and then was handed the US Senate job when his two rivals both dropped out due to sex scandals and still the Republicans were so unafraid of him that they thought of running Da Coach against him. He should not be a Senator even, and because he’s a good speaker and “charasmatic”, the media and those like you assume he’s ready for Commander-in-Chief. Tell him to call me when he’s passed a bill with his name on it or negotiated a peace between Cubs/Sox fans or when he’s stopped looking like he’s 24 years old.

p.s. he smokes two packs a day as well. i thought liberals hated second-hand smoke?

Robert J. Moeller
December 17th, 2006 - 15:37

chubbs-
good to see your passionate about your beliefs, if nothing else. i respect that alot. i disagree with most of what you said and i think i know where you are going “wrong” in your thought processes.

for me, its not just about Republican/Democrats. you brought up what you thought were examples of conservative ideals run-a-muck (Nazis, KKK, etc) but all those things were nothing more than evil people who shared perhaps a couple of the same beliefs as the Conservative Party as it is today in America and nothing more. with your line of thinking, i would be fair in saying that Democrats and Liberals have had their mis-steps with Socialism, Communism, and Secularism. if you are willing to conceed that liberal thinking carried out to its logical conclusion is Communism (responsible for over 100 million deaths around the world since 1918) than i would be willing to enter a discussion on just how close the KKK is to Reagan Conservatism. and also, to bring up African conflicts and compare it to the fervor and/or tactics with which Republicans conduct their political business is flat out incorrect and it is comparisons like this that undermine the good points you tried to make in this response. Africa is a mess because of Europe, and their own doing, not America. there are plenty of places Liberals can point too as examples of blunders in American foreign policy, but Africa is not one. FYI: Bush has given more aid to Mother AFrika than all other presidents combined. (i can find you the stats to back it up if you’re interested).

next point: you claim that because i satirically placed Barack’s middle name in the piece that i am guilty of what Obama accused all Republicans of being…namely, racists incapable of supporting black government officals. (will Condoleeza Rice please stand up?) again, conservatives (Bush) have had more black high-ranking officals in this administration than any other president before. i put his middle name in it because he is ashamed of it and tries to keep it out of print. he was caught on tape last week speaking with, among others, NY TIMES reporter Maureen Dowd asking her to not talk about his middle name and to not make fun of his big ears because he’s sensitive to that. what did she do??? wrote an article supporting him the next day at what a strong leader he would be and how he is courageous enough to enact real change in our country. tell me you are not naive enough to think that if Senator McCain or Mitt Romney (see my blog from Oct on how much i like him and he is my choice for 2008) had asked a liberal reporter from the Times to not print something about a superficial flaw they were shy about she would have complied? what if Rudy Guiliani’s middle name was “Adolf”? you think that wouldn’t be brought up other than on liberal blog-sites? my point here is that i dont care what his stupid middle name is. i care about a media who is unwilling to shed any true light on Democratic candidates ever since Bush won because they hate him so much and honestly believe he stole elections and is the Spawn of Satan so to stop radical conservatives (the kind who support small government, lower taxes, tax breaks for charities that work with homeless, strong national defense) who controlled the House for 12 years (after 50 straight years of Democratic rule where we saw such failures as the Great Society). i passed it along, in a humorous (hopefully) way. politicians are slippery customers, but liberal candidates, so much more than conservatives, are unwilling to give up information that conservatives have exposed without even being asked. kerry refused to release his taxes even after Bush did in 2004. (reason…he is one of the wealthiest Senators because of who he married and was recieving numerous tax breaks, all from a guy who preached how greedy Rep’s were and how he understood the common man). kerry refused, to this day, to release his military records. even after Bush did so and Bush was still attacked for his service in the National Guard (resulting in the firing and humiliation of respected liberal news-anchor Dan Rather for knowingly using documents that were not verified to be true and ended up being completely false). Kerry never talked about his voting record. he never told the people that he had less than 6 bills with his name on them after over 25 years in the Senate (a feat that no other Senator has ever been able to “accomplish”).

my point here is that the media coddles people they think they can shape into liberal leaders. i dont doubt Obama’s sinciere hope to end poverty and root out corruption (especially when he knows what that looks like so well…he was investigated for a shady land deal where he bought a mansion in chicago that just so happens to be next to a lot that his friend and campaign contributor purchased right before OBama bought his plot and then was sold at a cheap price part of that land parcel and expanded his house). it is not enough to say that someone sounds good or looks good. it is what they believe in (voting record). dont give me the old line that Christians use when they are Democrats and want to justify their vote for people who willingly extend the right to abort over 40 million innocent fetuses. Obama does say he’ll vote for gay marriage. he says he is pro-choice. he says he is against the Patriot Act which has prevented (that we know of) now nearly a dozen potential attacks on our own shores. did 9/11 not happen man? to say that we can only defend ourselves when we’ve fixed our own problems only speaks to your misunderstanding of the situation we face. they attacked us. we, as a country, voted for Bush twice. he is in charge. he cannot go to war without Kerry and HIllary and the gang voting for war. they did. he went. we defeated Sadaam’s joke of an army, but DID underestimate just how insane those people are in Iraq and how long it would take. the reality is we have our military there. we cant leave now. we have to help stabalize and deal with iran and syria. it sucks, but we do. no one wants it. you think conservatives want war? you think the soldiers want to be there or Bush wants them there any longer than they have to be? there were choices made, collectively (and under consent of the UN…no matter what Al Franken tells you) to confront dangerous regimes who pose threats to our way of life. Iraq, Iran, N Korea. think how much easier things would be if, instead of political bloviating and posturing by the Left and weaklings in Europe, the world came together to support us in a struggle that is not only for our safety, but the world’s. (see attacks in Britain, Spain, etc)

chubbs, my man, i appreciate your thoughts. we disagree and that is fine. i hope there are more on my side in 2008 than on yours. Obama is the definition of being a “light-weight”…at least for now. maybe after years of public service and experience, but unless he changes his stance on abortion, gay marriage, national security, and taxes i have no time for him.

one final point: to imply that poverty and social ills in our home country are comparable to allowing abortion, the further destruction of the institution of marriage, and being weak on protecting the freedoms we do have is not a strong argument (unless you’re in Boston or Berkely). how can he say he has a heart for the plight of the inner city and the poor (he cares for the quality of people’s lives) but he doesnt care if people are allowed to murder a life before it has its chance? we should be doing all we can to help those who need help. but you and i both know that not everyone is in need because of someone else’s fault. God commands us to help and love our neighbor. it is unbiblical though to condone laziness and/or those who take advantage of a generous nation who does so much for those in need. you know better than most that real poverty exists in America, but what usually amounts to poor here would be wealthy anywhere else. the quality of life for everyone will improve if we elect men and women who are pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family, and are dedicated to protecting us. what good is arguing over the policies of a nation when one side does not even care (exhibited by their actions and voting records) whether or not we are as safe as we can be? for me, at its core, its not about political parties but something that many Americans have seemingly misplaced the last 40 years or so…common sense.

keep reading and feel free to respond back. hope all is well buddy. i like that we can disagree and be passionate about such important things without someone like Saddaam cutting our hands off for dissenting. what a country!

Anonymous
December 18th, 2006 - 17:34

Touche on some points Moeller…on to the next topic…please note in my first blog that I did mention my support Romney as well.

- Chubbs