After a quick reading of a rush transcript of last night’s presidential debate, I cherry-picked and rearranged a few comments by the candidates that caught my interest. Here’s the link for anyone who wants to read the verbatim report: http://politisite.com/2011/09/23/tr...ial-debate-september-22-2011-orlando-florida/ The veto Congress runs the country in spite of wannabes saying they will do this, that, or the other thing. The presidential veto is a president’s most powerful tool in domestic affairs; so I was especially pleased to read the following: REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well obviously, it would take more than one individual, but the responsibility of the president would be to veto every single bill that violates the 10th amendment. That would be the solution. WALLACE: Anything else? You have a little time left. PAUL: Well, I’ll tell you what, that is the subject that is crucial because government is too big in Washington, D.C. It’s run away. We have no controls of spending, taxes, regulations, no control in the Federal Reserve printing money. So if we want government, whether it is medical care or whatever, it is proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools. But there’s no authority in the constitution to do so much what we’re doing. There’s no authority for them to run our schools, no authority to control our economy, and no authority to control us as individuals on what we do with our personal lives! BAIER: OK, we got to the full answer there at the end. Governor Johnson, same question to you about the 10th amendment. With this added, you are an outspoken libertarian. What makes you a better choice for libertarian Republicans than Congressman Paul? FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON, R-N.M.: I’m not going to presume to make that assumption, but I would like to say that I do bring a unique perspective to this stage. I started a one-man handyman business in Albuquerque in 1974 and grew it to over 1,000 employees. I have run for two political offices in my life: governor of New Mexico and reelection. I promise to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013. I promise to veto legislation where expenditures exceed revenue. And if anybody doubts my willingness to veto bills, I think I vetoed more bills than any governor in the history of the United States. I think I vetoed more bills than all the other governors in the country combined. Add to that, throwing out the entire federal tax system and replacing it with a consumption tax, the fair tax, which would absolutely reboot the American economy because it does away with the corporate tax to create tens of millions of jobs in this country. Whenever candidates talk about using the veto against Congress the question is: Will they stick to their guns when push comes to shove? or will they compromise because the wise guys in Congress add a sweetener to a piece of legislation in order to get the president’s signature? It all comes down to judging a candidate’s balls. Department of Education QUESTION: Hi, I’m Stella Lohmann from Atlanta, Georgia. I’ve taught in both public and private schools, and now as a substitute teacher I see administrators more focused on satisfying federal mandates, retaining funding, trying not to get sued, while the teachers are jumping through hoops trying to serve up a one-size-fits-all education for their students. What as president would you seriously do about what I consider a massive overreach of big government into the classroom? Thank you. BAIER: That topic is for all candidates. And to get everyone to weigh in, 30 seconds each, please. Governor Johnson? FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON, R-N.M.: I’m promising to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013. That’s a 43 percent reduction in federal spending. I am going to promise to advocate the abolishment of the federal Department of Education. BAIER: Governor Perry. GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS: There are a lot of good ideas here on the side and whether it is cutting back on the Department of Education, making those types of reductions. BAIER: Governor Romney? FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.: Let me tell you what I think I would do. One, education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level. We need get the federal government out of education. And secondly, all the talk about we need smaller classroom size, look that’s promoted by the teachers unions to hire more teachers. We looked at what drives good education in our state, what we found is the best thing for education is great teachers, hire the very best and brightest to be teachers, pay them properly, make sure that you have school choice, test your kids to see if they are meeting the standards that need to be met, and make sure that you put the parents in charge. And as president I will stand up to the National Teachers Unions. BAIER: Governor Romney, I want give you more time. Did Governor Perry say something that wasn’t true? ROMNEY: I’m not sure exactly what he’s saying. I don’t support any particular program that he’s describing. I think that the president — I think the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is doing a good thing by saying, you know what, we should insist that teachers get evaluated and that schools have the opportunity to see which teachers exceeding and which ones are failing and that teachers that are not successful are removed from the classroom. Those ideas by Secretary Duncan, that is a lot better than what the president did which is cutting off school choice in the Washington, D.C. schools. So let’s give us a full chance to talk about it. BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann? REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: We need that to do with education what has always worked historically, and that’s local control with parents. What doesn’t work is what we see happen right now. I’m a mom five biological kids. We’ve raised 23 foster children in our home. The reason why I got involved in politics was because of the concern I had about our foster children and the education they were getting. What I would do as president of the United States is pass the mother of all repeal bills on education. I would take the entire federal education law, repeal it. Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I’d turn off the lights, I would lock the door and I would send all the money back to the states and localities. I don’t know enough about Governor Johnson to say how he will shakeout in the White House. Remember that Bush the Younger turned into a wimp on domestic policy after he moved into 1600; nevertheless, Johnson merits a closer look based on his statements about vetoes and the Department of Education. Again, it comes down to hanging tough when the time comes. So far, Michelle Bachmann gets my vote. Just compare Bachmann’s promise to turn off the lights to Romney praising Arne Duncan —— then decide for yourself who should be trusted? Incidentally, if the topic interests you please read the thread at this link: http://www.politicalforum.com/education/154360-why-not-abolish-department-education.html I am not going to offer any quotes about Social Security, but I do have some comments: Not one candidate suggested forcing every civil servant to pay into SS the way FDR forced private sector workers. The result was that many civil servant entities opted out of SS —— ending up with retirement plans paid for by the labors of the private sector workforce. Those tax dollar funded plans put SS to shame as the public is learning. Finally, I have no objection to legitimate, necessary, civil servants getting a good deal. I deeply resent the millions of parasites in local, state, and federal governments cashing in when they contribute nothing to society. Many of those parasites are nested in education industry bureaucracies in large and medium cities. Most are political hacks whose jobs were a payoff. NYC alone has five or six thousand parasites in education who never set foot in a classroom.
Flanders.. Being somewhat able to study.. Study how Paul vetoed ( voted No..) almost every pork spending bill he saw. Seems absolutely fantastic until you look and see he was up there with Murtha in accepting the most ear marks for himself. So his no vote was not on principle..or substance..therefore must be labeled as BS..or politics as usual to stay in power in a safe district..just like a democrat REED and Pelosi used. I cannot fathom why nobody seems able to grasp that concept. For further reading Romney vetoed a lot of what Dems added to the health care bill in Mass. but was over ridden by the majority. The Paul veto would just be the same..he has no support in congress.Both sides would attack his veto..seriously limiting anything ever changing.. Johnson ..New Mexico ? Did he veto a fence being built along his border ? A good stance on 1 subject but being bad on several others.. Bachmann.? From a district just to my south..one of the most conservative in a liberal state. Raising 25 kids is admirable..show me her executive experiences in balancing the same budget you admire with Johnson's remarks. Congress people do not have the training or the experience to lead a nation. They have positions..speeches..safe votes. Governors and Mayors cannot hide behind such comforts. A lack of a voting record gave us the Obama White house. He seemed so safe..so positive Hope and change. This time we must vote on experience and historical records. who can lead both sides..from a conservative center...not from the right edge.
To MnBillyBoy: You failed to define a conservative center; so the best I can do is try to answer your comment with my take on the center, on compromise, and on the Lefts tightly woven modus operandi and objectives. Liberalisms most effect lie goes back to the beginning of the Cold War. It is the most effective lie American Socialists/Communists ever told to allay fears of Soviet aggression: Communism and Capitalism will meet in the middle and everything will be okay. That one lie became the foundation for every compromise Socialists demanded, and got, from conservatives. That one lie also spawned the movable center. In truth: Under our system of government, anarchy is one extreme, totalitarian government is the other extreme. Limited government is the permanent center. It never moves. If there is a conservative center as you suggest, it has to mean strict adherence to the Constitution. Abolishing the Constitution is, and always will be, the primary objective for Socialists; hence, the never-ending conflict between conservatives and liberals. If conservatives want a permanent center as I suggest, every compromise since LBJ shifted the welfare state into high gear shows that liberals got a movable center; a center that moves Left never Right. The worst of compromise is that it did more to turn America into a democracy than any other socialist con job. The reason is obvious. Liberals love to preach democracy as they compromise their way toward totalitarian government. Not once did I ever hear a public figure condemn democracy. Ive heard hundreds laud bipartisan legislation which is nothing more than doublespeak for compromise that moves the center further Left. America is in the process of transforming itself into a full-blown democracy on its way to a totalitarian government and look at the damage compromise has already done to individual liberties. Thats why nothing sickens me more than to hear a Republican talking about spreading democracy around the world as though it is a much to be desired form of government. Such Republicans are either too stupid to know that democracy is always heading towards something worse, or theyre in on the con with Democrats. Forget everything about compromise except this one thing: Conservatives should never compromise with Socialists for the sake of democracy. Bottom line: Compromise, democracy, and the Lefts movable center are as one in the minds of Democrats. Finally, in the following article Jay Haug refers to center-right and center-left without mentioning the Lefts movable center; nevertheless, it is a fair analysis of compromise: September 22, 2011 Why Liberals Love Compromise By Jay Haug Cheered on by the media, the left demands that politicians in Washington and everyone else "compromise" for the good of the Republic. But compromise is the problem, not the solution. Since the 1960s, the political game has been set up as an inevitable march toward liberal utopia. Gender equality, homosexual liberation, equal economic outcomes, world peace, and universal health insurance (unless Grandma is too old). If only the left got us lower cable bills, we might really be interested. Much of this leftist push has been achieved outside the electoral process through PC thought on university campuses, media saturation, and head-scratching Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade. But to get to leftist Oz, the political conflict must be framed on a straight line between the status quo and the liberal utopian destination. Of course, the status quo is not conservatism, but somewhere between center-right and center-left, depending on the cultural energy at the moment. This is where the incessant chorus of "compromise" comes in handy, usually after a liberal defeat at the ballot box, as in the 2010 elections. Since the "big win" is off the table now, they will settle for incremental leftist progress. Accommodating chaps, these liberals. Having given up short-term on "hope and change," our liberal friends pound the table demanding that we go half-way with them. For the left, half an enchilada is better than none. They know that the game is rigged so they can be patient in expectation of ultimate triumph. Here is why the "compromise" game is bad news for conservatives. Do you remember line drawings in high school math class? If you do, you will remember that if one point on the line is "where we are now" and another point is liberal utopia, any point between them will move you toward liberalism, not away from it. Set up a new half-way point between a new status quo and liberal utopia and you move even closer. Get the idea? The game is a "heads I win, tails you lose" schoolyard setup. By playing it at all, America never becomes more conservative, government never becomes smaller, schools never become more accountable to parents' wishes, spending is never cut, and on and on. By playing their game we conservatives do nothing less than assure our ultimate defeat. We have played it too long, and it is time to stop. Game-change awaits. Have you ever asked yourself why is it that very few public officials in Washington, D.C. ever become more conservative? We even have a term for "liberalizing" a government official. We call it "growing" in office. Why is it that no Supreme Court justice ever reads the Constitution and becomes more conservative? One could argue that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have maintained their conservatism. But David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, and Anthony Kennedy, all nominated by Republican presidents, have disappointed. Rockefeller Republicans painted themselves into irrelevance in the 1960s and '70s before Ronald Reagan had a better idea. But for every Ronald Reagan and Rick Perry who used to be a Democrat, there are hundreds of RINOs who cannot resist what liberals have told them, namely that leftism is inevitable. "Lie down, think of England" (Utopia's homeland), and get used to it, they are told. The liberal drift is also not confined to Washington, D.C. In Florida, former governor Charlie Crist mostly touted conservatism during the Bush years but got soft in the head under Obama and is now an 800-number personal injury attorney, no doubt soon to vote Democrat. Part of the reason liberalism has appeared so inevitable is that "compromise" has replaced "reform" as the game that is played. What I say is this: stop playing their game and start playing ours. Conservative reform is what America needs. Their game has bankrupted the country, ruined our schools, hamstrung our economy, and confused our foreign policy. Their game failed in the '70s and is failing again now. We conservatives cannot win until we change it at every level of government, local, state and federal. Fortunately, we now have media outlets that can communicate the reform agenda. Instead of an inevitable liberalism, we must move the opposite way on the line, toward conservatism advocated as reform. The question must become not how much compromise is needed or how politicians can be reelected. Rather, it must be how fast we can move to smaller government; parent-controlled education; moral, constitutional values; freer enterprise; and a robust defense of American values. Fortunately, we have some powerful winds at our back that can change the game. Washington is utterly broken, our politicians have no answers, and the electorate is motivated and fresh with better, freer ideas, based in America's founding ethos. Ronald Reagan said it best: "If not us, who? If not now, when?" But it begins with refusing to play their game and starting to play the winning game, namely ours. Jay Haug is a freelance writer living in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida and looking for his next gig. You may contact him at cjcwguy@gmail.com. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/why_liberals_love_compromise.html
