DNCcpcl

HEADLINES

INTERNET ARTICLES

Democratic Platform's Hidden Soros Slush Fund -- Michelle Malkin (8/20)

Zogby: McCain in 5-PointLead Over Obama -- John Whitesides (8/20)

Denver police list convention protest do's, don'ts -- Colleen Slevin (8/20)

The Democrat inquisition -- Brad Jones (8/20)

An open letter to those of you here for the DNC -- Andrew Ripemoff
(8/21)

Democrats Would Have Been Smart To Skip Convention -- Matt Towery
(8/28)

COMMENTARY

Convention Wrap-up

It’s all over but the shouting, as they say. Actually, the shouting will consists of millions of words flowing from the keyboards of thousands of pundits expressing their opinions about the relative worth of Barack’s acceptance speech. Far be it from me to rain on their parade, so I will keep my comments relatively brief.

I was watching the speech with a few of my friends and fellow CCM members at a restaurant/bar near downtown Denver. It was extremely crowded, and most of the crowd appeared to be in their mid-30s, which made us somewhat conspicuous. Even more than the relative age differences, the fact that we did not clap at every ridiculous comment made in the speech eventually had the crowd eyeing us suspiciously. Noticing that we were taking notes, the people that were sharing our large table could no longer refrain from asking who we were. Although they could not fully comprehend who we were and what we were doing, they were, nonetheless, very friendly and courteous.

After the speech ended, one of those strangers at our table solicited my opinion of the speech, on a scale of A through F. I asked her if she was referring to the delivery or the content. I told her that, from the delivery perspective, it was an “A” or “A+”, as one would expect from an Obama speech. She then asked, “And the content?” I replied “C-“ or “D”. After all, when a speaker goes on for 40 minutes, even a liberal politician is likely to say one or two good things, even if they are not credible, considering the source. Therefore, I did not give him an “F”.

Except for the pre-advertised part of the speech consisting of about 1,000 words in which Obama was to address specific issues and offer specific plans and solutions, the speech was a typical Obama speech, full of idealistic platitudes, vague generalities, and many appeals to what Obama refers to as “the working class” and “working people”. That alone tells me three things. The first is that he seems to be talking only to people who are working, and not to those who for some reason are not. The second is that he does not care for, nor does he believe, that wealthy people do not work. Third, as so many liberal politicians do, Obama actively promotes and plays on class envy.

During that very brief period (even for Obama) during which he discussed specific plans and ideas, he was extremely vague, promising to achieve this or that result, usually without explaining how he would accomplish it. Nonetheless, most of the crowd cheered or clapped, apparently without giving the slightest thought as to how this or that could ever be accomplished. Apparently, he was relying on his supporters’ reliance on “hope” and the confidence that “we can do it.”

Some of the specifics in his speech included:

· A promise to end the War in Iraq “responsibly”, without even suggesting what the word “responsibly” meant here. Evidently, there was no need to, since it sounded good to his kool-aid drinking supporters.

· That he would pursue the War on Terror, even going so far as to claim he would pull Osama bin laden out of his cave, What he did not mention, of course, and what probably none of his supporters realize, we would have to invade the nation of Pakistan to accomplish this. I guess we should not worry about the minor details here.

· One of the good things that he promised was to improve the care and opportunities for veterans returning from the war.

· He briefly mentioned his previously promised plan to end nuclear proliferation, as if American presidents have not been working on this issue for decades. No doubt he expects that his persuasive speaking and sound, logical reasoning will accomplish what others could not. At any rate, he offered no specifics here.

· Regarding other national security issues, he failed to make mention of actually winning the War in Iraq, improving Homeland Security, or securing the nation’s borders.

· In what was probably the most humorous line of the speech, Barack offered to meet with John McCain “anywhere, anytime” to debate which of them was better qualified to serve as our nation’s Commander-in-Chief. He did not even qualify the challenge by including the caveat that it could not be done in the format of a “townhall” type of meeting.

· On the economic front, he promised to reduce unemployment, raise taxes on corporations that transfer work overseas while reducing taxes for those who do not, and use the government to improve the economy. As usual, he provided no other specifics on these issues. He never mentioned the issues of combating inflation or protecting personal savings, nor did he address high energy prices.

· He briefly discussed taxes, and promised to lower the taxes paid by the lowest 95% of Americans; never mind that less than 95 % of Americans pay taxes today. He would raise the taxes of the other 5%. Although he did not say it, he could have added “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” He did not discuss the problems of the nation’s entitlement programs nor the issues faced by retirees in the country.

· On energy issues, he promised to tap the National Petroleum Reserve and allow drilling for new oil only as stopgap measures, then went on to say that we must focus on developing other energy sources.

· If there was any mention whatsoever of environmental issues, it was only in relation to broader aspects of the economy or our energy problems.

· Family issues were barely mentioned at all. A brief mention was made of continuing support of abortion, but making improvements to the nation’s education system was mentioned a few times, without any specific being included.

· There was no mention made of our judicial system, including appointments to the Supreme Court.

· Regarding Health Care, he promised that anyone who did not have health insurance now would be granted protection equivalent to the current plan enjoyed by members of Congress. He also promised that the rates being paid today by those who did have insurance would be reduced. He did not specify how either of these items would be accomplished, only that they would.

· He addressed Second Amendment rights by first saying that he would uphold everyone’s right to own guns, but that he would take the AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. Again, there were no specifics as to how this would be done, only that it would.

· International free trade was not discussed, other than the earlier-mentioned threat to add taxes on those companies that send work overseas.

· Immigration issues were not brought up other than to ensure that families of illegal immigrants would not be broken up as a part of the effort to enforce immigration laws.

For Obama supporters and other people who are willing to overlook the irrational logic in most of what he says, it was a good speech, and a happy ending to what might be considered a very successful convention. Many commentators and bloggers are skeptical that the desired level of party unity was achieved, but I believed that it was, at least well enough to carry through to November. With the possible exception of some disillusioned Hillary-supporters, the conventioneers seemed to leave Denver in a very happy mood.

Fortunately, the concern of riots and violent demonstrations that was prevalent before the convention was unwarranted, since only a fraction of those who had threatened to participate and create mayhem actually appeared. The weather cooperated graciously, with the convention-goers enjoying the beautiful Colorado weather that is normal this time of year.

We would be remiss if we did not give a special salute to the outstanding efforts of the Denver Police Department, as well as those other police departments and offices that added their support. To say that they were professional, competent, and friendly would be an understatement. And as begrudgingly as it may be offered, we also salute Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Governor Bill Ritter for a job well done.

Now it’s on to the Twin Cities.

**************************

Pelosi Press Conference on Energy – Tuesday, 8/26

Followed by a crowd of loyal followers that were almost as numerous as the throng of media and curious onlookers that had awaited her arrival, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally arrived in front of Denver’s Union Station this morning to unveil her Party’s vain attempt at an Energy Policy. After an introduction by Denver’s own Rep. Diane DeGette, the Speaker acknowledged some of the members of her entourage, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter.

It was not long after she launched into her speech, in which she first tossed an olive branch to the majority of Americans who want to open up offshore drilling by acknowledging that some new drilling was included in the plan, that she was confronted by a sizable group of hecklers at the back of the crowd who were holding McCain for President signs and chanting “Drill here, drill now.” It did not take long for the press conference to be disrupted, as the hecklers were able to drown out the words of Ms. Pelosi. What soon followed was a shouting match between Pelosi and her antagonists, which quickly degraded into her asking, “Can we drill your brains?”, and labeling the hecklers “handmaidens of Big Oil.” Rep. Hoyer added, totally irrelevantly, “all thinking Americans know” that America doesn’t have a quarter of the word’s fossil fuels yet uses a quarter of the world’s energy. He referred to the protestors’ behavior as “sophomoric”.

Citing mythical “experts” who, Pelosi said, have claimed that offshore drilling would reduce gasoline costs by a maximum of two cents over ten years, she totally ignored the fact that gasoline prices have already dropped by more than forty cents a gallon since the President merely removed one of the obstacles to offshore drilling by removing the executive order banning it. She then referred to the “drill here, drill now” group as the “two-cents-in-ten-years-crowd.”

**************************

Let the Games Begin

Let the Games Begin! No wait, that was last week, and it was Beijing. This is this week, and it’s Denver. And if it’s Denver, it must be the Democratic National Convention. Instead of seeing thousands of athletes running around trying to win gold medals, we have thus far seen just a few hundred anarchist moonbats walking down Colfax Avenue carrying ridiculous signs calling for an end to capitalism, praise for Communism, and total surrender to Islamofascism. The small crowd (I would call it a gaggle) that was originally expected to number in the tens of thousands turned out to be perhaps one and a half thousand, which is a generous estimate, larger than that reported by the police and most media sources. It was spurred on by such patriotic American icons as Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill. Let’s hear it for our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly! The First Amendment says nothing that prohibits making a fool of yourself. However, it does also cover freedom of the press, a right that these hypocrites attempted to stifle when they purposely intimidated FOX News reporters. Perhaps they simply forgot about that part of the First Amendment, which guarantees all of those rights including those that they so ardently claim to cherish as long as they satisfy their own purposes.

Countering this radical group was a much smaller group that was holding its own rally across the street, and whose goal was to “support our troops and their mission”. The rally was sponsored and conducted by the non-partisan groups Vets for Freedom and Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Joining the rally were Denver Chapter members of the group Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM), including myself.

As one would expect from such a group, it was loud but reserved. There were rousing speeches by a few of the vets, and group sing-alongs of the Star-Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful. Between all of these, the sound system blared recorded patriotic country music from singers such as Lee Greenwood and Charlie Daniels. It was all like an old-fashioned, small town 4th of July atmosphere.

Occasionally an infiltrator would sneak in from across the street and try to stir up trouble by asking old standard anti-war questions such as, “Why doesn’t Bush send his daughters to Iraq?”, “How many troop hospitals has George Bush visited?”, and “What is a ‘moonbat?’”. The latter term could be frequently seen on the pro-troop signs, affectionately alluding to the people across the street who were fawningly listening to words from the Bible According to Cindy and Ward. The word apparently touched some raw nerves over there.

Some of us could clearly remember news reports of the mayhem that occurred at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, so we were not sure what to expect once the anti-war and anti-everything types ended their pep rally across the street and began their march past our position on the street corner. But a phalanx of police kept the groups separated, and at least the initial portion of the march proceeded without incident.

Whether the streets will remain so relatively peaceful over the next few days remains to be seen. What will be surprising, however, is if even half of the number of protesters forecasted by the coordinating group Recreate 68 actually shows up in Denver this week. It is not that we wouldn’t welcome them, but we would prefer that Chicago retain the inglorious record for political anarchy and mayhem. The convention itself will most likely provide all of the anarchy and mayhem that the locals here desire. We hope that the tornadoes that touched down near Denver last night do not portend what the future holds for the DNC.

**************************

Saving Face?

(April 19, 2008) An article appearing today at the Liberal website Daily Kos provides a clear illustration of how liberals are willing to sacrifice their own principles at the altar of political expediency. Alternatively, on the other hand, it may simply demonstrate that the most important liberal principle is political expediency. In either case, the article by “Kagro X” entitled The offshore drilling floodgates are open explains to its readership that liberals in Congress can no longer hope to renew the congressional mandate banning offshore drilling that is set to expire on September 30.

Citing the recent flip-flops on this issue by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Colorado Representative and Senate candidate Mark Udall, the article conveys the message that the Republicans have carried the day on this issue, and that there is little that the Democrats can do, The author himself sums it up when he tells his fellow liberals, “So it's either flip now and do what you can to save face, or stick it out to the bitter end and lose.”

That assessment illustrates one of the major differences that have always existed between conservatives and liberals. Imagine if you will that a similar situation existed over an issue such as higher taxes, the war, or government provided health care. Imagine further that the tables were reversed and the Democrats held all of the cards. You can be sure that no true Conservative would recommend to his or her colleagues to “flip now and do what you can to save face.” To do so, in the eyes of a Liberal, is to be pragmatic. To a Conservative, it would be unprincipled and unauthentic.

Granted, there are pundits out there in both the old and the new media, as well as a few Republican politicians, who label themselves “conservative”, but in fact are not. True Conservatives place their political principles above political expediency. That is why conservative organizations such as CCM continue to promote its message even at a time when the political pendulum in America has swung away from conservative political values. We realize that, eventually, the pendulum will swing back to the right as it always has throughout our nation’s history. We firmly believe that, by and large, most Americans lean toward conservative values, a characteristic that separates us from our European cousins. Although from time to time we may flirt with the type of liberal values and systems that have flourished across the Atlantic, it does not take us long to recognize that the path we are on will mean an end of the freedoms and economic benefits that we hold so dearly as Americans. And the pendulum swings back.

Conservatives do not worry about “saving face”, for we have nothing for which to be ashamed.

**************************

Comments on the Democratic Party Platform

The Democratic Party Platform Committee has completed the work of providing a draft party plank to be approved by the party faithful attending the National Convention in Denver in two weeks. As is the case with most party platforms, it is grandiose yet vague in nature. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is general enough, with some exceptions, to serve as the “Statement of Principles” for either the Democrat or Republican Party if the names were changed. The document praises and promotes liberty, personal responsibility, frugality, opportunity for all, and a strong America, just as the Republican Platform will. One of the major differences, however, can be seen in the last paragraph of the Preamble, which states:

We have a choice to make. We can choose to stay the current failed course. Or we can choose a path that builds upon the best of who and what we are, that reflects our highest values. We can have more of the last eight years, or we can rise together and create a new kind of government.

This platitudinous statement of promise implies that, at least recently, America has been a failure, and that it is the Liberals who can right the ship and make America great again. It ignores the unprecedented prosperity that America has experienced during the last eight years, and suggests that it will take a wholesale replacement of our current economic and political system to realize the promise that America offers.

This is, of course, what the Liberals’ principles and philosophy are all about. It is a philosophy that states that, if the individual would just get out of the way, the government will provide the solutions to all of the problems so that our nation will prosper. It is a strategy that says, “Mr. and Mrs. America, whether you know it or not, you are discontented. Now that you are sufficiently discontented, if you give us the chance, we will bring you out of your discontentment. Just trust us. We will provide the details later.”

If Conservatives were not so keenly aware of the past and present failed performances of liberal government, we might see this platform as a serious promise to take America along that path called for by our founding fathers, who unanimously agreed that less government is better and that, at best, government itself is a necessary evil. At the same time, Conservatives are confident that the majority of Americans, come Election Day, are sufficiently intelligent to recognize this liberal flimflam for what it is, and rigorously reject it.

**************************