American Republic Online

Hillary’s husband, Bill, recently stated that

“We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

And you know what? He’s right. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (at least to the magical 1990 level everyone favors for some reason), our economy would suffer a serious set-back. Less transportation, less industry, etc. Few have been willing to admit this. Others shrug it off willingly as an easy sacrifice. Although I doubt the majority of people would agree. You see, environmental-consciousness is a luxury of developed societies. When one is struggling to survive for a week, or even a day, issues that might face future generations are pretty low on the to-do list. It’s rather easy to tell someone to live a salt-of-the-earth lifestyle while sitting in air conditioned rooms, next to refrigerators, down the road from grocery stores, benefiting from formal education, etc. Oh wait, the Kyoto Treaty doesn’t force itself on developing countries, only those who can afford the changes. Why not? Because of the harm it would do to their economies. Do the “struggling middle class families that have been walked over by the Republicans” mind if his wife “slows down our economy” to fight global warming? Hmmm….

[Editor’s note: The following is a commentary by the newest member of ARO, Ereke. Enjoy.]

Political campaigning, especially on the presidential level, seems to be more about themes these days, than anything else.  What I mean is that, while a line-by-line evaluation of the issues and considering where each candidate stands in relation to them, may still have it’s place in our electoral process, what seems to be mattering more to people, is the theme or slogan that resonates with them most.  As the time drew closer for the Iowa Caucus to actually begin, the candidates started vehemently scrambling, not to make any of the individual issues more plain or pronounced, but instead to leave one last emotional impression on the hearts of the people, so that at the moment of decision, what they would feel about a particular candidate would naturally weigh just as much or more than what they thought about his or her philosophical views in regards to the difficult task of running the country.

Usually, I am very much opposed to this kind of politicking, believing it to be more like what used car salesmen do to get an uninformed buyer to purchase the most expensive, and sometimes least reliable vehicle on the lot.  However, after monitoring the circus (I say that in the most respectful use of the word) which we call the Iowa Caucuses, my heart began to soften a bit to the idea that perhaps even in politics, the emotional impression one leaves will inevitably matter more than what one has to say, or even what one has previously done.  And perhaps that’s just the way things will be.  It seems everything they taught me in my training in the financial sales industry was true, even in politics. 

 

Yet, it all still leaves somewhat of a bitter and unpleasant aftertaste in my mouth, kind of like a Sam Adams beer, no matter which flavor I choose.  I was equally impressed with the charisma and charm of Barak Obama, as were the 38% of caucus goers who selected him.  However, my impressions of a fresh face and the romanticism of change cannot outweigh the fact that I would take up arms to defend probably 60% or more of the things he would like to “change” if he’s elected and gets the opportunity. 

Read the full article »

Tennessee’s very own Senator Corker stands up to Bush’s stimulus package (sorry):

“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger. “

He’s right. Fiscal stimulus such as that being considered in the Senate have not been proven to help the economy. The only thing they help is re-election campaigns. It’s good to hear some sanity coming from Washington.

Read the full article »

It seems strange at first, but it’s true. Now that Fred Thompson has left the race, most conservatives are now cheering for Barack Obama - but not for why you think.

Let’s look back to understand this twist. Conservatives got genuinely excited twice in this campaign season. The first time was back last summer, when Thompson spoke out a conservative message eloquently and with new media. This was a breath of fresh air that the Republican party needed. A true small government conservative that could explain conservatism in a way that made sense average Americans. AND he was able to tap into the new media - something Democrats have been doing much better than Republicans.

Conservatives waited with bated breath for their candidate. But after perhaps too much delay, Thompson entered the race with a whimper instead of a sizzle. Fred finally seemed to find his footing a few days before the South Carolina primary, coming out swinging in a debate a several speeches. Again conservatives got excited, but again it ended up being too little too late.

So now they wait and cheer for Obama to come and rescue them. Why? Because a race against Obama would require conservatism to win. A race against Hillary would require something completely different: Running against the Clintons, most of your time is spent fighting and trying to say ahead of the Clinton Machine. (Just look at the Hillary Obama race for proof of this). And a Republican candidate would try to win by focusing on Hillary’s negatives (which are quite high).

Read the full article »

The Dems had another debate but this one didn’t make your eyelids quite as heavy.  After the basic tie in Nevada (Hillary gathered more votes but Barack walked away with one more delegate), South Carolina could be a huge factor in establishing momentum going into Super Tuesday.

The AP has some good coverage of the debate, but I was amused that they point out the large black population in South Carolina.   They claim the 50% black population will be an asset for Obama, but fail to mention the 50% female population…

Read the full article »

It’s been a tough few weeks for race relations. The purest bastion of race equality - The Democratic Party - is looking a little tarnished. It seems everyone though a black Presidential candidate was “great” and “historic”, until he actually could win. Apparently the thought of a black President didn’t sit as well with the party as a Presidential Candidate.

Now in no way is the party as a whole against Obama. He has vast support inside the party and a the potential for Republican crossovers. But a significant faction of the Democratic Party seems dead set against Barack because of his skin color.

Rush Limbaugh is calling it the Uncivil War, and sides are being taken in unexpected places in the party. In what I consider to be a sign of the changing times, the lines being drawn for Obama and Clinton are not by skin color. Blacks and whites are on both sides arguing the race issue. Even the “civil rights leaders” like Jackson and Sharpton are split down the middle. But as they say, admitting you have a problem is the first step to fixing it. While the Dems have long claimed to be pro-minorities, many have pointed out that their methods seem more about control and not assistance.

Take for instance the Nevada Caucus mess. Democrats are constantly championing easier ways to vote and name calling anyone trying to “disenfranchise” people with things like requiring proof of eligibility or citizenship. That is, until a big union came out for Obama… then it wasn’t “fair”.

Read the full article »

Say good bye to the incandescent light bulb. Congress has banned them staring in 2012. Congress defends this blatant attack on consumer choice and the home is castle concept by sighting energy savings. Everyone talks about how much money and power everyone will save. Wrong!

• Save Money? Nope. You’ll spend it all on the more expensive bulbs. So instead of a check to the utility it goes to the lighting industry. Same mothballs in the wallet for the consumer.
• Save Power? Nope. If the fuel efficiency of cars is any indication, no power will be saved. Consumers will simply care less about turning off their lights. As cars have gotten better mpg, American’s simply drive more. The economic impact not some love of the planet is what drives these things. If making sure you turn off your lights only impacts your power bill $5 instead of $50… no one will bother. Increasing the power consumption back to the pre-meddling point. Sorry congress, market forces don’t change with your wims.

Sadly, when I first heard about this a few weeks ago, I asked “What’s next? Are they going to make it illegal to set my thermostat to low?” Little did I know just how quickly I would be proven right. California is trying to pass a bill to require radio controlled thermostats for “peak times” and “emergencies”. So what happens when California declares a “global warming emergency”? Wal-mart will sell out of window AC units that day. Though I probably shouldn’t point that out, or those will be banned before the emergency declaration.

• Bye Bye, Light Bulb - If only Microsoft could argue its competitors hurt the environment.
• Senate Votes on Bulb Bill
• House Votes on Bulb Bill
• Who Will Control Your Thermostat?

Read the full article »

Parents with backbones are now adding a marketing department to their arsenal:

After finding alcohol in her son’s car, she decided to sell the car and share her 19-year-old’s misdeed with everyone - by placing an ad in the local newspaper.

The ad reads: “OLDS 1999 Intrigue. Totally uncool parents who obviously don’t love teenage son, selling his car. Only driven for three weeks before snoopy mom who needs to get a life found booze under front seat. $3,700/offer. Call meanest mom on the planet.”…

Read the full article »

New Hampshire state law allows towns with populations of less than 100 to start voting at midnight and close the polls as soon as everyone votes. This gives the minute by minute news coverage -well- something to cover, while the votes of significance take place later today.  It also allows the creation of misleading headlines like “McCain Takes 100% of Vote!” (never mind it was 8 votes in one town).  Ah yes, journalistic integrity.  And to think that some suggest that the new media (read internet) needs government regulation to protect the news product.

• Small New Hampshire Towns Get Extra Voting Time