Link below is to a CNN article, and following is my rebuttal.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/begala.palin.republican.party/index.html?iref=newssearch
Date: 7/9/2009
By Jim Williams
Dear CNN,
I would like to give the conservative response to your recent article “The Politics of self-destruction” by Paul Begala.
In this article Mr. Begala starts out with the normal Democratic strategy of personal attach and on one of their favorite targets, Sarah Palin. My above statement is not a return attack on Mr. Begala, but an observation. My desire in this response is to raise the level of conversation to an exchange of ideas; not an attempt to win public support by a personal tearing down of someone with differing views.
The question is posed “Can’t anybody here play this game?”, referring to Republican politicians and then goes on to list the failures of some Republican office holders past and present. In doing this the writer trivializes the purpose of our political system (the game) and infers that because we all have failures we should not stand on principles of right and wrong. What should be pointed out in these cases is that the Republican Party has held their flawed representatives to the same standards as are expected from the opposing party’s representatives, which eliminates Mr. Begala accusation of hypocrisy. Publicly identifying and attempting to live up to a certain set of standards is not sanctimonious. We are all flawed people, but this doesn’t mean we should stop identifying and trying to reach the highest of standards.
This brings us to Mr. Begala’s comments on the Bush administration’s policies on the economy. While there are many conservatives that were very unhappy with President Bush’s spending practices, this was only a small drop in the bucket when reasoning out the beginnings of the current economic down turn. As is stated by the writer “politics are cyclical”, as is the economy. There is no way that we can enjoy an economic high tide for ever. Eventually the tide will recede. In addition to the expected ebbs and flows of the economy there were contributing circumstances that caused our current economic woes. There is the mortgage banking/ banking “crisis”, which is a direct consequence of the Community Reinvestment act, which was passed in 1977 under Jimmy Carter and revised several times under the leadership of Congressman Barney Frank (D) Ma. This initial act and it subsequent changes required mortgage loan institutions to give loans to individuals with “weak” credit, thereby weakening or removing the underwriting safeguards that would normally be in place in an unregulated lending market. This law has governmental checks that are followed by penalties to the lending institution if it is found they do not have a percentage of their loans made to weak credit borrowers. To achieve this requirement the banking industry had to be creative in order to sell the weak loans. To do this these “bad” loans were bundled with “good” loans so the complete bundle would be attractive to a potential mortgage buyer. This house of cards was created and enforced by good intentioned, but poor legislation and very poor oversight; and was certain to crumble eventually. So then the question becomes…was there oversight and, if so, was this problem know. The answer to both is a resounding yes. In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing”. And so it is… the Bush administration identified the problem and attempted to take action, but was stopped by the ranking Democrat of the entity charged with the oversight of this industry. These fact seem to be unknown or intentionally over looked when the attempt to place blame is made.
What about the auto industry? Are their failings a result of the Bush policies? When examining the auto industry it is important to look at the whole picture. They are a business…a very large business, but still must operate on the same sound principles of all other viable businesses. The goal is to make more than you spend. Sounds simple, but when factors such as quality of products, cost of inflated salaries and benefits for current employees, cost of benefits for retired employees, and competition in a new global market it becomes more difficult to operate with a business model that is old and outdated. This becomes even more difficult when needed changes are hindered or even halted by a union that is only looking out for one side of the business model, the employees. When a business has higher operating costs and a lesser quality product than the competition it is doomed to eventually fail. The world changed…the market place changed (became more global), but the Detroit auto industry stayed the same, because of this they are failing. Is this a Bush problem? No, this is a changing world, new global market problem. This is a lack of an industry to respond to their business environment with a viable, workable, responsive business plan. In short, this is a result of poor management on the part of the failing businesses.
Our world has never seen change happen so quickly. Gone is the inflated economy of the “Dot Com’s”, which the Clinton administration was able to benefit. Gone is the captive American auto industry, textile industries or any other product that can be produced cheater outside our boarders. And with it went our captive American Jobs. Is this a result of the Bush administration? No, this is a result of a new global way of doing business in an ever changing world. The major start of this change was during the Clinton administration when NAFTA was signed into law by our then President.
All of the above has created the perfect economic storm. So, what is the solution? In a capitalist market it would be left to each business to maintain a sound business plan. To stay viable by changing, improving, cutting, and adding as needed to be competitive and profitable. Some businesses will thrive, but some will fail. When failure occurs, and it will, if there is still a demand for that product or service it will create an opportunity for someone else to supply that demand. Outside intervention to prop up a failing company will only create dependency on the outside source and delay changes to the business model or the inevitable failure of the business. Therefore, to have a long term self-sustaining economy it must be free to succeed or fail on it’s on merit.
Mr. Begala feels led to provide the Republican Party with advice on changes needed to our platform. He sights the left leaning pollster Democracy Corps to say that 2-to-1 Americans prefer Obama’s approach to national security over Bush. He calls limited government, strong defense, and family values disgraced talking points. He goes on to recommend the Party “challenge established orthodoxies and overturn outdated dogma…”.So my question is which one of the disgraced Bush talking points is outdated and needs to be overturned? Is it family values, strong protection for our nation… or is it truly only one value that he refers to…Limited government?
Mr. Begala, we as a party stand on a solid political philosophy. Though our leaders may stumble and not live up to the family values for which we strive. We still choose to recognize and define right from wrong. The weaknesses of our flawed leaders do not make these values any less true.
We as a Party choose to defend ourselves and our country against all foes, foreign and domestic. We choose not to give up our beliefs or freedoms in order to appease an enemy that only ask for our full destruction.
We as a Party believe in the individual rights and freedoms that are bestowed upon each individual at birth by God. We believe these freedoms should not be restricted by an ever reaching, ever growing government; even when the restrictions are veiled by an untruth of “economic security for all”. We choose to have the right to succeed or fail in our pursuit of happiness.
Mr. Begala, these are not disgraced talking points… THESE ARE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!
As a Party… this is where we choose to stand!
But thanks for the advice.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Professor Arrested in Cambridge
By Jim Williams
Well the race card has been played once again. This time by Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well know Harvard professor. In addition to his Professorship at Harvard, Mr. Gates is also the Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford African American Studies Center. But neither of these is how I was introduced to him. Before all the media attention due to the Professor’s arrest in Cambridge, I watched the PBS special “African American Lives”, which Professor Gates hosted. This special explores the roots of some famous African Americans. The four part series was especially interesting to me due to the fact that Professor Gates self exploration found that his ancestry and mine had crossed paths. The investigation of his family revealed that they were at one time, during that terrible time of slavery, owned by the (Virginia) VanMetre Family. This is my lineage and therefore I felt an immediate connection to the professor. But as the series went on I became more and more disillusioned with him, due to repeated accusations and comments that could only be interpreted as racist. The first stunning moment is when, through DNA testing, he found that he was 50% white. His comment was that he was “horrified”. Why would anyone be horrified of their roots unless they had a predisposed dislike for a particular heritage; in this case Caucasian decent? This can only be interpreted as an anti-white comment. Secondly, the professor contributed this white heritage to, what he called, “Sneaking and Creeping” by the once slave owners of his family. His accusation was that the VanMetre’s, my family, sexually abused his family. To prove his forgone conclusion, he compared the DNA of a male VanMetre to his DNA. The results showed that he had no VanMetre lineage at all. His response was “I’m surprised”. Surprised, no doubt, because he assumed that sexual abuse was part of every slave / slave owner relationship. This evidence vindicated my family from this horrific accusation. But, Professor Gates never apologized for his slanderous comments or for his pre-judging of my family before actually knowing the facts. I say all this to show that Professor Gates has an obvious predisposition that influenced his behavior during the interaction with the Cambridge police officer. His predisposition is exactly what we as a society have been working to eliminate. The professor’s comment on the PBS special and during the time of his arrest shows a strong dislike for people of white heritage. The time has long passed when these types of comments and behavior should be tolerated. The race card should be thrown, but not by Professor Gates. It goes without saying; all facts should be gathered before passing judgment. To do otherwise would be handling the situation “Stupidly”. Are you listening Mr. President?
Well the race card has been played once again. This time by Henry Louis Gates Jr., a well know Harvard professor. In addition to his Professorship at Harvard, Mr. Gates is also the Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford African American Studies Center. But neither of these is how I was introduced to him. Before all the media attention due to the Professor’s arrest in Cambridge, I watched the PBS special “African American Lives”, which Professor Gates hosted. This special explores the roots of some famous African Americans. The four part series was especially interesting to me due to the fact that Professor Gates self exploration found that his ancestry and mine had crossed paths. The investigation of his family revealed that they were at one time, during that terrible time of slavery, owned by the (Virginia) VanMetre Family. This is my lineage and therefore I felt an immediate connection to the professor. But as the series went on I became more and more disillusioned with him, due to repeated accusations and comments that could only be interpreted as racist. The first stunning moment is when, through DNA testing, he found that he was 50% white. His comment was that he was “horrified”. Why would anyone be horrified of their roots unless they had a predisposed dislike for a particular heritage; in this case Caucasian decent? This can only be interpreted as an anti-white comment. Secondly, the professor contributed this white heritage to, what he called, “Sneaking and Creeping” by the once slave owners of his family. His accusation was that the VanMetre’s, my family, sexually abused his family. To prove his forgone conclusion, he compared the DNA of a male VanMetre to his DNA. The results showed that he had no VanMetre lineage at all. His response was “I’m surprised”. Surprised, no doubt, because he assumed that sexual abuse was part of every slave / slave owner relationship. This evidence vindicated my family from this horrific accusation. But, Professor Gates never apologized for his slanderous comments or for his pre-judging of my family before actually knowing the facts. I say all this to show that Professor Gates has an obvious predisposition that influenced his behavior during the interaction with the Cambridge police officer. His predisposition is exactly what we as a society have been working to eliminate. The professor’s comment on the PBS special and during the time of his arrest shows a strong dislike for people of white heritage. The time has long passed when these types of comments and behavior should be tolerated. The race card should be thrown, but not by Professor Gates. It goes without saying; all facts should be gathered before passing judgment. To do otherwise would be handling the situation “Stupidly”. Are you listening Mr. President?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
