Denver Post in the tank

Despite his headline “U.S. starts retreating from lofty Iraq goals” appearing on Page One of the Denver Post (10/23/05), author John Aloysius Farrell fails to provide any credible supporting evidence. Farrell’s list of sources, critical of current U.S. policy include; Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., first term Democrat Senator Obama, another anonymous senator, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., a former State Department aid who left the government almost one year ago, a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations and an “expert” from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (both non-governmental agencies), a representative of Kurdish interests, a former Iraqi ambassador and an former Iraqi expatriate who opposed Saddam Hussein. Regardless of how much these luminaries think that its time for the U.S. to now focus on abandoning Iraq, none of them speak for or represent the Bush Administration.

Also quoted in Farrell’s report is one person who actually speaks for the Administration, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, who reiterated once again that America intends to stay the course and succeed in Iraq. Sorry John, that doesn’t sound like any kind of “a retreat from lofty goals or fading of rosy outlooks” by this President or his party.

Americans are getting fed up with liberal reporters making it up as they go along and with leftist newspapers highlighting stories about Iraq designed to disparage the mission, deflate our resolve and defeat the President. If it were not for a pretty decent Sports Page and the color comics (my sons read every one), I’d be much happier without the Sunday Denver Bias and John ‘I’m-always-wishing-you’ Farewell.

Bush's Optimism Fades

Despite his headline “U.S. starts retreating from lofty Iraq goals” appearing on Page One of the Denver Post (10/23/05), author John Aloysius Farrell fails to provide any credible supporting evidence. Farrell’s list of sources, critical of current U.S. policy include; Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., first term Democrat Senator Obama, another anonymous senator, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., a former State Department aid who left the government almost one year ago, a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations and an “expert” from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (both non-governmental agencies), a representative of Kurdish interests, a former Iraqi ambassador and an former Iraqi expatriate who opposed Saddam Hussein. Regardless of how much these luminaries think that its time for the U.S. to now focus on abandoning Iraq, none of them speak for or represent the Bush Administration.

Also quoted in Farrell’s report is one person who actually speaks for the Administration, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, who reiterated once again that America intends to stay the course and succeed in Iraq. Sorry John, that doesn’t sound like any kind of “a retreat from lofty goals or fading of rosy outlooks” by this President or his party.

Americans are getting fed up with liberal reporters making it up as they go along and with leftist newspapers highlighting stories about Iraq designed to disparage the mission, deflate our resolve and defeat the President. If it were not for a pretty decent Sports Page and the color comics (my sons read every one), I’d be much happier without the Sunday Denver Bias and John ‘I’m-always-wishing-you’ Farewell.

Conservative ideals rooted in American values

Assuming that my being a Conservative is the converse of someone being a Progressive, I too believe in Human Rights, the Bill of Rights and open access to information. I get Annual Stockholder Reports, voting proxies and unfettered Internet access from Corporate America. I can monitor the actions of my government via C-SPAN and my democratic choice(s) of Media. And above all, I value individual human freedom(s) which include: the right to provide for myself and my family, the right to live in the best home I can afford, the right to be rewarded for my hard work, the right to reject environmental junk science, the right to discriminate between people I like and admire and those who are arrogant or immoral. And I value the freedom to support the Right to Bear Arms, the Right to Life and the right to deter crime by enforcing the Death Penalty. Unlike Progressives who strive for human betterment through social action, I favor honestly debating the great issues of our day "in the arena of ideas" and winning electoral victories at the polls. Imagine a world replete with Democratic societies, people loyal to the nations that bestowed such freedoms upon them, charity and inspired excellence. Such is life in America today and such is the promise for the entire world tomorrow.

With regard to my belief in the International Declaration of Human rights,
it would be chauvinistic to assume that only Progressives "believe" in the International Declaration of Human Rights. I would suggest that America's effort to foster Democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the Middle East are entirely consistent with this Declaration and it is Conservatives who are leading that cause. To the extent that the Declaration envisions a world built on Socialism, we would part company. Considering that this Declaration was adapted by the UN General Assembly, in which countries such as Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe vastly out-number civilized Democracies, I wouldn't expect principles of Free Market Economies, Capitalism and Personal Responsibility (which I and Conservatives favor) to be advanced therein. Considering the UN's track record and its corruption, I would be happy to see the US leave it, move its headquarters to Brussels or disbanded (it) all together. Are Progressives of the 21rst century demanding transparency with regard to the UN Oil for Food scandal? Did liberals demand Human Rights for the victims of Saddam Hussein's Iraq? And is the Social Action of today's left-wingers striving for human betterment by equating President Bush with Hitler and calling for his assassination? Its not the history of Progressive ideals that concern me, rather what liberal values have evolved into today: Abortion on Demand, Militant Homosexuality, Multiculturalism, Pornography and the expansion of the Welfare State.

Who betrayed who

Leading conservatives, who are disappointed, discouraged and depressed by President Bush’s selection of Harriet Meirs to fill the Sandra Day O’Conner vacancy on the Supreme Court claim they have been “betrayed” by Mr. Bush. The truth be known, it is these same conservatives who long ago betrayed themselves when they embraced George W. Bush for president.

Back in 1998, George Bush was not the preferred choice for America’s Conservative movement, but early on during the primaries, they saw the necessity of a united Republican Party in order to beat a sitting Vice President. By accepting Bush, a proclaimed Compassionate Conservative, Social Conservatives made their deal with the devil, never thinking they’d have to own up to it.

Never once has W campaigned or governed as anything but a Compassionate Conservative. He allowed Ted Kennedy to author No Child Left Behind, he hasn’t vetoed a single spending bill, he endorsed Arlen Specter’s primary bid against a more conservative opponent, he compromised on Federal funding of Stem Cell research and while he supports marriage between a man and a woman, he’s been unwilling to call for such an Amendment, as of yet. And while he repeatedly promised to nominate judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution, he never said he would appoint conservative judicial activists to the bench.

President George W. Bush is the leader of the Republican Party, not the Conservative movement and while there are 55 Republican senators, there are barely 50 reliable conservative votes to support an overtly, ‘in your face’ fundamental activist nominee, even if Bush wanted to. Social Conservatives, having held their noses and their fire over the past five years, think they’ve paid their dues and now, when the stakes are the highest, want their payback. Despite the fact that it is these same conservatives who have compromised their principles, they now expect this president to change his and lead them into battle against the g-dless, liberal activists.

Conservatives complain that, win or lose with the Meirs nomination we’ve missed the opportunity to force a national debate on social policy issues. I suggest that if Social Conservatives are ready to fight for their principles, the proper venue is the upcoming 2006 & 2008 Congressional elections. Take your activism to the people, participate in the ‘arena of ideas’ and win a real conservative majority rather than just a Republican majority and give this president and/or the next, enough votes to actually win the “culture war”, not just address it compassionately.

The end of hate

Oddly enough, I see an end in sight to the left’s complete contempt of one George, W. Bush, currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Such an obsession could possibly be understood prior to his re-election, but why do they continue to focus on destroying a man who will never go before the voters again?

I believe liberals fantasize they can somehow bring down President Bush in time to prevent him from changing the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court. They believe, if he or his administration were to be embarrassed, defeated, indicted or impeached neither he nor his successor would have enough “political capital” to gain confirmation of conservative nominees. In their minds, radical democrats from across the spectrum of special interests imagine they could force a weakened administration into preserving the current liberal bias of the court. Therefore, it has become a moral imperative for the left to vehemently oppose anything Bush says, does, proposes or even thinks. Any success for the president or America, for that matter, works against this strategic objective of the left.

Ultimately, the ‘great cultural divide’ in America centers on abortion, privacy rights, stem cell/cloning and other social and religious issues. Republicans have labored for 30 years to regain control of the presidency and congress in part, to stop courts legislating from the bench. For liberals, this scenario is Armageddon, which explains why they have directed such desperate distain toward anything and everything Bush.

Now that judge Roberts has been confirmed and a second conservative has been nominated, the intensity of the left’s frustration has reached a fever pitch. Otherwise intelligent liberals are apparently unable to control their outbursts in public or during family gatherings. It’s not uncommon to hear them berate the president out loud at the mere mention of his name and begin an unsolicited, irrational tirade against; that idiot Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, Evangelicals, Right-to-Lifers, Halliburton, WMD, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Dobson, Bill Bennett, FEMA, “Brownie”, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Halliburton, Abu Ghraib, Terri Schiavo, Guantanamo Bay, Halliburton, Halliburton and (oh yes) Halliburton.

Once the left sees that president Bush has succeeded in appointing three conservative judges to the Supreme Court, they’ll know the battle for control of the Judiciary is over for a generation or more. Having finally lost the Judicial as well as the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government, Democrats will jettison their absolute allegiance to pro-abortion organizations such as NARAL as well as other radical special-interest groups. As they turn their efforts back to winning elections through the political process, civility will return to the public square and the current era of the ‘politics of personal destruction’ and the democrat’s visceral hatred for all things Bush - will end.

Of course, I could be wrong. After having been wound so tightly for so many years, frustrated and defeated liberals could just start shooting people instead.