We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, November 11. 2008
Political bloggers are having fun discussing whether they want to provide a genteel loyal opposition to a presumably hard-Left and seemingly grimly humorless White House and Congress, or whether to attempt the same sort of relentless knee-capping and smearing to which the Dems subjected Bush for 8 years.
Naturally, the soon-to-be-installed Federal pols and their supporters are urging Kumbaya peace and harmony - on their terms, of course. That will never happen.
John Hawkins is inclined the other way: You guys arent going to do to us what we did to you, are ya? A cranky Ace tries to straddle the line thus:
My opinion? My opinion doesn't really matter, but I'll try to stand for some humor and truth. (Plus we aren't a political website anyway.)
Photo from Moonbattery's Moonbats Ready for Unity Now. Where was all of the togetherness last year?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I would so like to be above this.
But I can't help but smile at the thought of finding an opportunity to call out an "it's Chimpy-Obama!" or a "BarryHitler!".
My husband tells me he's never heard any of these kinds of derogatives pointed at Bush. So who knows? Maybe it's largely net-slummers that know about this stuff.
Ah, "genteel opposition", do you want your cocktail swirled, or shaken? I guess you would rather be invited to the proper dinner parties than actually take a real stand and call a spade a spade. Baseball and politics are played with hardballs..
Just remember to hold your pinky out gracefully as you greet the new government tenants of your farm a la Mugabe.
Go genteel into that good night: you, George will, and Christopher Buckley should make good companions on Ayers' cattle cars.
ARE YOU SH-TTING ME?!? If you want to defeat your enemy, you have to be prepared to be WAY more evil than he is. You have to be willing burn his cities! You have to want to rape his women and children! You have to set your mind to the total destruction of all he believes in, all he holds dear, everything he values! Unite with the enemy? I'd as soon emasculate myself with a rusty soup can lid!
RESIST! RESIST! At every opportunity, in every day, find in your life a reason to stand before the Democrats and OPPOSE THEM!!!
It will not be pretty; it will not be easy. We face two long, hard years before we can hope to see any return on our resistance. Those who survived the past election will find themselves on the cutting edge of our resistance, and they may flag in the face of out enemy's oppression. We MUST resist, and we MUST aid our leaders in finding the strenght to resist for themselves!
2-0-1-0! must be our rallying cry! We must be prepared to return CONSERVATIVES to public office at our very first opportunity. We must resist the idea that it can wait till 2012 or later!
NO "getting along" with our enemies!
Stand bold against the barbarians! You are either with us, or you are "dead men walking," sorry individuals just waiting for a place to lay down and die.
The Voice of the People is the Voice of GOD!
Resistance and blocking seem like good ideas. But they are, essentially, futile. For one prime reason: MEDIA.
If the media were honest, bipartisan, and fair, then resisting Obama would work and things could be fixed far more easily than not.
But more importantly, politics IS played in a field of compromise. Whether we want to accept that or not, it's true. Remember, it's the Republicans (of which I am) who socialized Wall Street 2 months ago.
I agree with the sentiment, but not as a means of doing battle. In politics, especially today's politics, you have to appear to be above the fray....even as you engage the fray. Rahm Emanuel is LIKED because he speaks of compromise, but rams crap sandwiches down peoples' throats.
I say we act as the loyal opposition, but give Obama limited room for maneuver. I will NOT work with the idealist shithead college students who called Bush a moron and now call for us to all love each other and work together. Their hypocrisy is beyond reproach.
Oh, For God's Sake, Murphy. Take a chill pill! You can't use what is presumably your reason and good sense when you're in a state of 'Roid Rage. Nor can you plan a good strategy when your mind is inflamed with hatred. I'm all for reasoned resistance to this wild wave of Democratic party's revival of all of the worst Democratic party ideas from the 20th Century, which didn't work then and will work even less effectively now that there are more people in this country, and unfortunately fewer of them have a good supply of brainpower. Resist these encroachments on our personal freedoms, of course. But do it with brains, not wild-haired ideas.
Discussion in barber shop this morning:
Barber: Well, I for one am sure glad those guys that wrote that Constitution did such a thorough job figgerin' out the checks and balances stuff. We're gonna need to have those two groups in DC in line now more than ever... can't be letting one Party rule everybody, that makes me nervous.
Old Guy in chair: Yeah, well, we almost lost all those checks and balances these past few years. It's gonna be good to have some unity down there now.
Barber: Maybe, but the first thing to go up in price this week was my ammunition. That worries me. I heard they're going after my bullets first. And how come gas is still going down in price? I thought that was just a ploy to get McCain in there.
Old Guy in chair: #3 on the sides, #5 on the top.
Me: How come Ben isn't working today?
So... we should stand idly by and allow the democrats to wreak their distruction on our country, our economy, our way of life, while we wait for the p-ss-ant semi-conservative leaders who have hijacked the Republican party to come up with some sort of warmed-over plan for soothing the Liberal feathers?
Do you not pay enough taxes? I certainly do! Do you need more government involvement in your life? I certainly DO NOT! How much more of your retirement plan should be given over to bailing out the auto or airline industries to placate their union rapists?
How much of the national treasure should be given to the banking and investment industries which kept feeding their line of b.s. to the world while the politicians blindly did their happy dances of denial, telling anyone who would listen that everything was all right; there's nothing to see here?
In a perfect world, the People would be, at this moment, marching on the centers of government, seeking retribution with righteous anger and the idea that it has finally come time to fertilize the tree of Liberty.
Roid Rade? Not hardly. Just the anger of a man who is seeing everything that he's spent the last half-century working for evaporate with each bank statement... with each quarterly report from his investment advisors.
Do I hold just the democrats responsible for the destruction I see around us? No. Many people, of many political persuasions have brought us to this particular destruction. They should all pay the price.
There can be no "reasoned resistance" if we are not willing and ready to bring the fight to them as they have brought it to us!
Last half a century? That makes you at least 68 Murph. What on earth is your financial advisor doing with your money in such non-secure places. You should take your rage out on the loser who has been running your accounts. Nobody at your age should have any money that goes up or down at times like these. You've been had, and not by some politician with a D or R by their name.
Besides- Who elected Reagan? Was it wild eyed conservatives? or just regular folk who wanted on the bandwagon of good vibes? Sound familiar? What about the house in 1994? Contract with America. Not "Democrats in the crosshairs with America".
Get real you troll. There is an army of Obots like you still making bank on this net stuff. Gonna get all the 'necks riled up and volitile are ya? You don't sound like a conservative, just an angry man. WOW, those politics always work with the uninitiated. You don't sound true, and if you are, you should reconsider your flaming virtues and maybe try to convince people rather than burn them at the stake.
Obama got elected on Reagan principles. That's a fact ass.
One winning tactic is to get the opposition to react to you. Frame the debate in your terms.
Another is to replace the idiots who got us here. (hint: it's not Democrats) Get rid of all the R's in charge. Put new ones up as minority leaders in the house. What was that Einstein said about being crazy?... doing the same thing over and over, something, something.... Anyway, how about let's not do that?
How about a little marketing? I heard there's this imaginary place that millions of potential voters go to every day, and for some reason there are NO conservatives there. Oh sure, you say "uh, ever heard of the web?" Yes, and I would say what do most Obama voters think of conservative blogs? Uh huh, thought so. And how many of these people know what kind of hate is slung on lefty blogs? Zero, correct.
They beat us with marketing, by making us react (hello Murph), and by placing people at the top who can get results. So now, just what part of being angry and combative to the left addresses any of these things? Zero, again correct.
I mean, duh folks. The answer to "genteel loyal opposition vs. act like they are percieved to act by right wing bloggos" is: None of the above. Why is this not obvious? Chart a new course and don't look back, unless you want to keep following the R leadership down the memory hole.
I believe that in times of war we must all band together. However, the dems have declared the war non-existant, so I guess we can have at them.
The bad guys either do not exist or the o can talk them out of their "naughty" behavior, so that leaves a safe peaceful world in which it is safe to engage in exactly the same type of behavior they have exhibited for the last eight years while WE WERE AT WAR AND OUR PEOPLE WERE IN HARMS WAY.
Murph, You lost me with the evil thing. This is not a race to the cellar. Obama, the progressives, liberals and whatever is left of the historical Democratic party have the cellar all locked up. They are a bunch of misfits with a chaotic worldview, led by moral relativism and addicted to situational ethics. Conservatives will not win the game by being more "evil", whatever that means.
The idea that we can play nice in the sandbox with Obama the Marxist, Rahm Emanuel and Reid-Pelosi is sheer folly. Their objective is to create a Democratic hegemony that will live forever if they can.
The plan is to create dependence on government with all sorts of new programs, including nationalized health care. They only care about the economy and people to the degree that those pawns can be manipulated for the purpose of maintaining power. They will get their wealth because they will use their position power to make it happen. The people will live in servitude to the government.
Phil, you are kidding me that you believe Obama got elected on Reagan principles. He got elected by promising something to everyone and just added tax cuts to 95% of Americans to the list. Something for everyone and something for nothing. It's just too bad that so many were blinded to the truth about Obama for whatever the reason.
The strategy pursued by the RINOs has clearly failed. McCain, while a good man, was dreadfully wrong on many policy positions, including AGW, illegal immigration, taxes (until he flipped at the end), the role of government in health care and government spending in general. The RINOs got caught in the trap set by the liberals. The RINOs let the liberals define the debate, establish the nomenclature and create the rules (including I can criticize you, but you can't criticize me). In the end, you had a compromised candidate in McCain, who was not highly differentiated.
Conservatives need to go back to conservative principles and without apology explain why those principles make sense for America.
The message needs to be marketed from both positive and negative perspectives.
Here is message from the positive. The vision of America needs to be built on these ideas and others like it.
Conservatives need to explain why free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. Conservatives need to explain why low taxes create jobs and economic opportunity. Conservatives need to explain that judges should not legislate because it take the power to decide away from the people. Conservatives need to explain why the rule of law is important and how illegal immigration hurts society and how legal immigration helps our society. Conservatives need to show we have compassion for the poor by explaining how school choice will give them an opportunity to learn and a chance at success. Conservatives need to explain why the politics of victimization only perpetuate victims. Conservatives need to revive personal freedom and personal responsibility. Conservatives need to articulate a vision of the future based upon these and other timeless principles.
This is a message of true hope to people who want to improve their lives. Ultimately, people value what they have worked for and accomplished and not what has been given to them.
People want to believe in themselves. We have the right message, but it has been mangled in its delivery.
Develop all of the necessary soundbites.
On the other hand, every idea, proposal or comment that contradicts or impedes the positive message needs to be confronted. People need to know why it is wrong and then told why the conservative agenda is better. This must be done point by point, event by event and by every person who holds conservative or libertarian values. It is akin to hand to hand combat.
I am not suggesting that we "Bork" Obama, but I am saying that he should not be given one free pass. This does not have to be done in anger, because there is such a thing as righteous indignation. But every lie needs to be identified as a lie and repeated long enough so that people get it.
Paul at Powerline is dreaming when he says pray that Obama achieves greatness and be loyal in opposition. Obama does not have the stuff to be great nor do I expect that he will have an epiphany and leave his Marxist roots.
Obama may be President and I can respect the office, but he is not my President because he is the antithesis of my values and antagonistic to the Constitution.
I will be loyal to the Constitution.
Silly me. I forgot that Reagan's landslides were delivered by a rock-ribbed conservative populace. Had nothing to do with people jumping on the bandwagon of say, oh, I don't know, uh, tax cuts? Uh, vision? Nope, all those people must have been smokers cuz theyz all dead now? Could be the only explanation....
What the left wants now more than ANYTHING is for the right to continue down the angry path. This opens the door for gun control, thought control, speech control, and the freebie: mind control. If you start with their position, you will be an easy target. How do you like painting the target on your own back? That's the freebie, you do it to yourself. Nice.
I am not sure you read what I wrote. You also sound angry in your reply. Obama promised tax cuts and big government. It was just more candy in the candy store.
I started with conservatives need to be conservative and unapologetic about it. Please read what I wrote again. I think you will find that I essentially agree with you. Marketing is key. It has to be offensive and defensive.
Regarding Reagan, he had a vision. Do you remember it's "morning in America"? Sure, some people jump on for whatever the reason - tax cuts to use your example. But Reaganism was much more than the incoherent set of promises Obama has made.
Reagan had a very consistent and positive view of America and her people. If it was anything less, he would not have had the enduring and growing legacy he now enjoys.
As Meta said, point by point and pass it on. All of us can and will make a difference.
You bet I get angry when I see our side playing right into the hands of the leftists. You can't beat them at their own game.
As for Reagan- Do you really think his landslides were because of people understanding his conservative message? If so, where did those people go? As great as he was, he had "it" and people responded. He clearly did not reach each and every one of his voters with a conservative "shining city" clarification on their lives. Nope, a whole lot of people jumped on that bandwagon. This election was a heck of a lot closer than his were and the difference could easily be pinned on non-partisans, going along with the whole charade, with their own bugaboos to apologize for like Reagan's democrats. (grown up hippies)
Look at the One, he's all churchy, tax-cutty, vibing responsibility, his own "shining city" to believe in. There's no comparrison to Reagan other than the sheeple who elected both of the men.
Humor. Thanks for saying it, and keep reminding us. It's our best weapon, but when we get enraged we can't use it. Iowahawk, PJ O Rourke, Scrappleface, Steyn - let a thousand flowers bloom.
We can have both gentility and warfare if we're smart enough.
I still want to know how the Republicans got painted red states when the Commies were red. And I really hate so much labeling, its not like 100% of the voters voted that way.
By the way Murphy, sorry for your losses but the "enemy" are fellow Americans and I spoke with many that voted for Obama. Violence is not the answer. I think speaking up in a civil strong tone and able to marshal the facts and argue why liberty is important will do much to bring them back to the light. I also assume you are down at party headquarters volunteering for party work and holding them to account.
One more thing, we need to win the "emotional" battle.
Look at the picture of this dear young lady. Do you think she "feels" or "thinks"?
My bet is she thinks to justify her feelings.
I told a friend of mine, who is a bright, educated and articulate guy and who voted for Obama , that he was an "emotional thinker" when it came to politics.
I think there are many people like this. The quasi-education from the public school system has created lots of muddled thinking.
Hear, hear. Some of that emotion is going to cause some problems within the democratic party, too. Meanwhile, a lot of 'emotion' voters are going to grow up in the next two years - if not four years.
Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele are vying for head of the republican party. I say let them both lead it. What a team. At any rate, we don't look good going off half-cocked about this. As you say, Barrett - point by point pass it on.
Grant 1863 poses an interesting question in re How did Republican states end up painted red on election night? Grant 1863 probably recalls, as do I, that when the media started this red-blue business on election nights, back in the '70's or '80's, the Republican states were blue and the Democrats red.
My not-so- right- wing- conspiracy- nut- theory is that the media received many complaints from Democrats painting their states red as it was too easy to subliminally compare them to the "Reds", i.e., the commies. In Britain, Labour is always red, Tories are blue, a definite class thing for the Brits.
I think this is probably why Republicans started out as blue as the media powers-that-be quite logically compared Republicans to Tories, and Democrats to Labour, a more or less accurate comparison. Anyway, the media, subservient to the Democrats as they are, switched colors for their pals and in the next election, voila!, the Republicans were painted red. Trivia question: In what year did the Republican states turn "Red"?!
I went to the website where you are to post your kumbaya pictures, it's http://www.zefrank.com/from52to48withlove/ and all I can say is I think I want to throw up.
It looks very "made to look homemade" by some slick ad agency. Most all the hand-printed "notes" look like they were made by the same hand, and the photos look like they were all taken by the same person with a camera that has the same resolution on every picture. Hmmmmm. Seems suspicious to me. Fake sincerity, too.
Mostly it's a lame attempt to beg us to be nice to the "one" and stop finding fault with their messiah. Fat chance! This guy, if he makes it to inauguration day (gotta show SCOTUS that certified birth certificate by 12/1 you know) will make so many mistakes that the liberal media will ignore - someone's got to call him and his followers on it.
It's going to be a loooonnnnnnnggg four years.
greenmtnpunter, bingo! I noted the same thing after all the post-2000 caterwauling, but most people I mention it to don't remember. Can't recall the year for your trivia question, it must have been no earlier than 1992 though.
For all the good views and interesting thoughts here I see one thing that is being overlooked.
The segment of the population that can be reached by logic, reason and especially, a call for personal responsibility is inherently small. That's just my opinion of course, I have no statistical data to support it other than the median IQ.
You all talk as if all you need to do is just find the 'right' words to enable a majority of the voters in this country to see the light. Ain't gonna happen, I don't think. There just aren't enough sparks to light that fire.
I have no idea what it might be but I think a new approach is in order. One that bypasses big media and academia.
I have to disagree on a couple of fronts. The segment of our population that cannot be reached by responsibility, reason, logic and all that has nothing to do with I.Q. A poor coal miner in West Virginia can have the same values as Thomas Sowell just as some snippy Harvard freshman can have the same values as some hausfrau in the midwest. It's more character than anything else, and character springs from upbringing. The one guaranteed approach that will create enough sparks to light that fire is another terrorist attack. How sad is it that it takes a catastrophe to erase the schism in this country - that words have indeed created. Not so much acts as words have been the fodder for our discontent. Let's hope the next attack is on the NYT's with a simultaneous one on the LA Times.
At any rate, we are not finished as the greatest nation on the planet. What ridiculous defeatist talk. We deserve to be finished for 'giving in' if that's the case.
It has something to do with IQ if the message is such that it requires IQ to understand it. I wasn't being judgmental in my use of the median. Just using it to illustrate that I think it necessary, to not dumb down, but to reach into that character of values that you speak of with a message that has broad appeal. A message different in delivery, form and factor from the present one... which apparently is not working out so well.
I share your concern about apocalyptic catastrophe being the only event that might unite the country again. But, anymore, I'm not so sure that even that event would suffice. How long did the aftermath affects of 9/11 last before the left was its old self. Days, weeks... not long in any case.
But I am with you in believing that we are not done. We haven't even started yet, in my estimation. We're still too busy identifying the problem to start work on the solution. The problem is not as obvious as some might think I say.
Agree with what you say but stick with my view about I.Q. not having much sway for your argument. You cannot state that a majority of liberals in this country have subterranean I.Q.s. I daresay liberals would claim conservatives have 'Deliverance' level I.Q.s. It's not a good metric as the variables are immensely diverse. I think if you want to generalize and try to come up with a summation of the 'disease' that is affecting our country, it would be just that - dis-ease - from everyone. Statistics don't prove the liberals won because they were better. If anything statistics prove that all of us are just sick and tired of politics and the cruds who run our government. Worse than they, however, is the media hammering away twenty-four hours a day telling us what to think. And American, land of choice, we get to pick the media we want to tell us how to think. If anything, the average person, without wanting to, has abrogated his discernment to think. That, I think, is the greatest danger facing us - biased media. Why else would some start yelling that the sky is falling down? Add to the grotesque fetter to free-thought, the media, political correctness, and we're afraid to think! Too many lies, too many broken promises, too much dread and sooner or later we don't want to think much less trust ourselves when we do.
That's not about I.Q. That's human nature and how it deals with relentless, chronic fear.
Again. My argument is about the message, not the IQ. Of course the message must appeal to both ends of the spectrum... or median. That's my point. Though I didn't make that clear initially.
Agree about biased media. That's why I suggested they need be bypassed. How to do that... haven't a clue. But I do have faith that others will.
And yes, it is human nature that we futilely struggle against, a constant of life I think.
Let's make up a million t-shirts that say:
I AM WINSTON SMITH ... on the front.
A JACKBOOT ON THE MEDIA ...on the back
See my note above about "emotional thinkers". The principles are right. The delivery of the message needs to done in a multifaceted way so that as many can be reached as possible.
Obama was, in fact, very good at this. He spoke in abstractions that allowed people to define things according to their own beliefs. He made them "feel" as if he was speaking to them. I believe this is one of the reasons people "liked" him.
There is no reason conservatives and libertarians can't do this as well. We do have history and the truth on our side. All the left has is demonstrated failure of every socialistic experiment ever tried. No wonder why they are shrill and they lie.
Yours was an excellent comment Barrett. I did not mean to denigrate what anyone here has said. Only to add an extra dimension.
Sad, though, that multifaceted reminds me of multicultural.
Obama is the 'man behind the curtain'. No argument there at all. As is the socialist component of the left.
But in essence that is what many look for... guidance from above. My argument about a change in the message is that the present one no longer works. Perhaps it does, every eight or twelve years... but it is just trading places.
History and truth... look at Meta's and grant1863's comments. Truth is now what the media and academia make of it. We have to burst that bubble.
Luther is correct. More than 1/2 of the US voting population cannot be reached by logic or reason especially with calls for personal responsibility.
It is actually somewhat worse, Luther. In addition to wanting Mommy and Daddy (aka Uncle Sam) to make sure that they and theirs never suffer any physical or economic harm, they also want the possibility of psychic suffering removed from their lives. Even ordinary anxiety is no longer acceptable.
We are now a European nation and there's no going back. The battle is finished, we lost.
Knuck... I've been reading you for far too long to believe you mean your last sentence here. Buck up man... we've work to do yet.
I concur. They, the more ardent Obama followers, are positioned perfectly for a Wilsonian-style APL force to come around and check up on our diets, our recycling habits, our child-rearing style... smoke much? Got an extra room for a homeless person? Any conscription-aged residents? What's that you're listening to on the radio? Got any guns or Bibles in there?
They will suddenly become very pro-American, in the name of Obamanation and his effort to help us all weather the economic crisis and the assault from religious fundamentalists like bin Ladin... and Palin.
Pajak, Which Wilson? Woodrow?
John Derbyshire on National Review,few weeks back made some comments that most of this blog may agree with. He wasn't worried too much about economics as Obama and Congress with $1 Trillion deficit don't have much money to play with. wasn't too concerned about Defense because McCain did Obama a big favor by winning in Iraq and the Europeans/Asians will not want us to leave.
His big worry was cultural with thousands of politically correct leftists running around in the government bureacracy making all sorts of trouble and further directing everyone to Big Brother instead of yourself and family and friends and fellow citizens. That one is hard to reverse and that would be the most fruitful to reverse. Question is how?
Grant - check our times and references from your post here and my last one. Eerie.
I don't think we need to worry too much about 'doing' much in the way of reversal. The government, for all the reasons you cite will let us down, will do it for us.
Yes, Woodrow. My college-dropout understanding is that Wilson and Mussolini were running neck and neck for the most totalitarian leader of the early 20th Century. (Mussolini won, fortunately). Wilson instituted a civilian security force called the American Protection League which was instrumental in the rounding up and arrest of nearly 200,000 citizens for anything from questioning the intelligence of the president to having discussions IN THEIR LIVING ROOMS in which they expressed an aversion to buying war bonds.
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you...
Relations between conservatives and liberals over the past eight years can be likened to engaging in debate with poop-flinging monkeys. You may have the winning argument, but you still wind up covered in liberal poop.
Since I long ago discovered that the best way to lower my blood pressure was to raise it in someone else, and since I have given up trying to reason with those jerks, I decided it's time to descend to their level, be the flingee, and have a t-shirt made up:
"Thank A Liberal For Giving America B.O."
In my world, it is sometimes necessary for me to abandon the Web for Reality World. The thing I like best about the Web and blogging, is the ability to throw a bone into the middle of a pack of ravenous dogs and watch what happens.
Not that ANY of you might be considered ravenous dogs. In reality, you are the voice of my conscience; you approve or disdain my offerings, you give me the benefit of your thinking, and I can accept or reject what you are willing to share.
D-mn! I wish all y'all were sharing some smoky tavern with me, so we could share our ideas face to face and ear to ear.
I've watched all the responses to my posts of yesterday, and I now have these thoughts to offer:
First, to #9 Barrett: You say what I think. Contrary to popular belief, while I might be convinced to head out and lynch some Liberal politician after an evening filled with firey speaches and adult beverages, I swear to you that I haven't hung or harassed any politicians in almost two whole weeks!
I've been tempted, but I've held strong!
Am I angry? H-ll yes! But for as much as I am angry at the Dem's for the lies they told to beat us, and there were many, I am even more angry at the GOP for not only allowing those lies to go unchallanged (talk radio and the blogs tried to fight the lies, but without the backing of the party we were trying to support, it seems to have been wasted effort,) but for spending the last four years trying to out-spend the worst of the Liberals.
There is a battle out there to be fought, (many, many battles, as a matter of fact,) before we will be able to reclaim our standing as the Party of the People. Do I see the night when the glow fron the fires in the national capital light the skies? The answer to that is "No," though I would not loose much sleep if I knew that people like me have finally reached the point where they see no other solution than revolution. It worked before; it might work again.
And to #6.1 Phil: you missed my age by 10 years. I have been gainfully employed since I started mowing neighborhood lawns at age 10. Over the years, I put my money where everyone said it should be; conservatively invested with companies that had proven track records. Nothing crazy, nothing over-the-top.
But look at the number of companies that had proven track records; nothing crazy, nothing over-the-top, that have gone bust. That's where I was, and since then, every quarter brings statements which reveal that all my "sweat-equity" in my "golden years" is dropping by an average ten percent per quarter.
If you know of an alternative to what I've been doing, I'd love to hear it.
So would MILLIONS of other near-retirement Americans.
I am 38 and just watched 27% of my money go poof. Cool thing is, by the time I am 58, if things go as they have for 100 years, that cash will have come back.
In the mean time I will slowly move all my money into something other than stocks. I really wish I could spring for some of this cheap real estate right about now.
My cash account hasn't gone down a dime. If I was paying attention I would still have many thousands of dollars. I pretty much put the blame on myself, and so should millions of other near retirement Americans who blindly rely on their 401k to always go up. Again- I have time to wait, I suspect if the market rises over the next couple years people will see their money return. Best thing to do now is wait.
It's human nature to want to win. But as a centrist one can initiate brawls, then sift through the resulting muck for fresh ideas or data that might be useful.