WE'RE BACK!

After a five month hiatus, The Drum and Cannon will again be posting articles on current issues. The only changes will be in the frequency that new articles are posted, and a few minor format changes. A new feature, The Colorado Page, has been added to include issues specifically related to Colorado.

Guest writer articles are always welcome.

|     HOME   |    ARTICLES     |     ARCHIVES    |     COLORADO PAGE   |    HUMOR     |   TRIBUTES    |    LINKS    |     ABOUT    |    CONTACT  |

IN THIS ISSUE

ARTICLES

Teddy, Sarah, and the Double Standard
If the Media and the Left didn't have Sarah to chirp about, they would have to go back to blaming Bush

A Changing of the Guard
Bipartisanship and compromise are dead; it's time for the RINOs to go.

Hope for the Future
America's youth are fine. It is up to the older generations to give them the chance to live up to their potential.

===============

ARCHIVES

UPDATED: November 22, 2009

HOLDING CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE

See how the Senators and Representatives from your state have voted on key issues in the 111th Congress. Click HERE

(0) Comments                Post comment

ARTICLES

Teddy, Sarah, and the Double Standard
If the Media and the Left didn't have Sarah to chirp about, they would have to go back to blaming Bush
Jack Ott
November 22, 2009  

There are not many things that tickle the funny bone of the average American male more than to witness a good “cat fight” between two or more women, especially when it is over some issue that most men find trivial.  

Before you begin deriding me as being sexist based on the above comments, I can only plead Nolo contendere because the words “sexist”, “racist”, and “elitist” apparently are valid terms only when used by liberals to describe conservatives that they do not agree with. Moreover, when used by progressive liberals, they seem to be even stronger and more valid, usually worthy of BOLDFACE ITALICS AND CAPITAL LETTERS. These protestations, however, are as thin, transparent, and irrelevant  as their sources. So I will continue, throwing politically correct caution to the wind, as I usually do. 

My literary cause today is the brouhaha surrounding Sarah Palin and her new book, Going Rogue. One thing I envy about the Guv is her ability to get under Liberals’ skin. The latest flap, however, goes beyond the normal intramural cat fight. The media guys are getting into it as well. As usual, David Letterman never wastes an opportunity to display his “with-it”, sophisticated credentials by bashing Sarah. Male newspaper reporters on both coasts and various points in between found something that seemed, in their tiny journalistic minds, to be worth writing about. And Sarah Palin is getting all of the press that she and those of us who like her could want. Bring it on, dimwits! Her book was a best-seller before it even reached the book stores. And more people love her than ever. 

Much of the motivation for all of this negativism is, of course, to divert attention from two of the greatest failures in American history, a.k.a. the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress. I purposely described them as “two of the greatest failures” because they have been in existence for only a little over 300 days. Give them a chance. One or both of them will surely take the top spot. On the other hand, it is good to hear something coming from the mouths of liberals other than, ”it’s all George Bush’s fault.” I am really getting tired of that whining. When nothing you are doing is working out right, it is far easier to blame someone else rather than to look in the mirror. 

One of the most ridiculous raps on Gov. Palin is that she is inexperienced, as if Barack Obama is the reincarnation of FDR, Lincoln, and Washington combined. Realistically, at the time of the presidential election, Sarah Palin was more qualified and had more experience than Obama. But she wasn’t as eloquent, as if that is any qualifier. Also, she had not been a student of Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers, which are two strikes against her from the Left’s point of view. Nor did she reap the benefits of sitting in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s congregation for twenty years, learning about love for your fellow man. She is from Idaho and did not attend an Ivy League school, which automatically disqualifies her from any measure of credibility to anyone east of the Alleghenies.  Perhaps worse than anything else, according to the self-proclaimed, blue-blooded elitists, is that fact that she hunts. But she not only hunts, she hunts moose and other large game. How plebeian can you get? 

Why then, if Sarah Palin is as irrelevant and inconsequential as they say she is, do they write article after article about her, make one joke after another, and devote major segments on the cable news channels belittling her? The answer is easy. It is because she represents the true and real America, and that simple fact is frightening to the denizens of the Left. Secondly, she is a celebrity (thanks largely to their efforts), but she refuses to pay her dues to the National Celebrities Union as have many “intelligent patriots” such as Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore, nor has she prayed at the Altar of the Anointed One. They see her as a threat, and will do everything that they can, with the help of the State Media, to bring her down. This is a typical tactic of any group that does not have truth nor reason in their political arguments. 

One can only wonder if President Teddy Roosevelt was similarly belittled by the press and his political opponents when he went hunting buffalo on the Great Plains or elephants in Africa. The answer is, of course, probably not, because those activities were symbols of his manhood. Somehow, it seems different when it is a woman holding the rifle. Hey, Maureen Dowd and David Letterman-tell me more about this sexism business, would you?

(0) Comments                Post comment

A Changing of the Guard
Bipartisanship and compromise are dead; it's time for the RINOs to go.
Jack Ott
November 16, 2009 

I have always subscribed to the old political axiom that says, “Party trumps the person.” The phrase is another way of saying that if you as a voter strongly favor one political party, always vote for that party’s slate, even if you do not consider some of them to be the best candidates. According to this logic, voting for the party instead of the person increases the chances for the party to gain an overall majority, therefore enabling it to implement its own agenda. 

Since the 2008 elections, the political environment has changed. The Democrats, under the leadership of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, have moved far to the left of their historical moorings. This has caused a conservative backlash, sharply reducing the likelihood of compromise and moderate bilateralism in the political Center. Meanwhile, many GOP leaders continue to believe that, in most cases, moderate Republican candidates are more likely to gain a larger portion of the votes of the all-important “unaffiliated” or “independent” voters. Democrats, along with many in the media, praise this “moderate” approach while simultaneously proclaiming that the Republican Party is hopelessly split and facing certain demise. This is not at all surprising, since people on the Far Left have always subscribed to the theory that if you vary from the truth often enough, fiction becomes fact. It also explains why they were surprised at the results of the November 3 elections, and made every attempt to minimize the results. 

To the Democratic majority in Congress today, “compromise” means accepting its agenda while giving up little, if anything. An example of this took place last week when the Senate Finance Committee issued its Healthcare Proposal with no “public option” included. Among those voting for the Bill was the “moderate” Republican Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe. Although the proposed Bill still included many provisions that would result in greatly increased costs to Americans, both as healthcare recipients as well as taxpayers, Democrats hailed the Bill as being “bipartisan” (see the Sen. Baucus website), gaining a political victory and meeting one of the major goals of the Obama Administration. However, it took just a few days for Senate Democrats to insert the public option back into the Bill and, although Senator Snowe later retreated from her support of the now revised bill, the point had been made.  

Senator Snowe is not running for re-election in 2010. If she were, however, there is no doubt that the Republican Party leaders would once again support her. In effect, they would be supporting a “moderate” who is likely at any time to bolt the Party’s principles and join liberal Democrats in accomplishing their agenda. Why is this? It is because the GOP leadership still seems to be convinced that moderates like Snowe will win re-election, even though she would give them a less than dependable seat on the Right side of the aisle in the Senate. They have no concern that she probably would feel just as comfortable on the other side. In the Party leadership’s collective mind, numbers are more important than principle. In reality, there would be little difference if either Sen. Snowe or her Democratic opponent actually won the seat, because all too often their votes would be the same.  

Carrying this scenario one step more, would Republican voters in Maine be obligated to vote for Olympia Snowe under the mantra of “party trumps person”? Many would undoubtedly feel that doing so would be no different from voting for the Democratic candidate. At a different point in our history, when both parties were more centrist-oriented, voting for the party rather than the person was more justifiable. That is not the case now, and will not be in the near future. 

A second case in point is the situation in the 23rd Congressional District in New York State, where eleven County GOP Committees had put up a very “moderate” (I use that term loosely, here) candidate, Dede Scozzafava, as the Republican nominee. Scozzafarva had publicly embraced and supported some of the most radical parts of the Obama Administration’s agenda, and several commentators had noted that she is farther to the left than her Democratic opponent is. Meanwhile, the Conservative Republican Doug Hoffman made it a three-party race, running under the banner of the Conservative Party. Rejected by conservatives from around the country, including Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and even Hugh Hewitt, who instead threw their support behind Hoffman, Scozzafava withdrew from the race. Then, Scozzafava endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, as other moderate Republicans around the country who found themselves in the same situation, have done. Partially because of this, Hoffman lost in a very close election.  

In the 2008 election, independent voters moved to the left and handed Barack Obama the presidency. Many were swayed by Barack Obama’s promises for “hope and change”, but were unable to see through his charismatic façade and empty promises. Obama’s charisma was not the sole driver for this migration, however. Public discontent with the Bush Administration was a major factor, caused not only by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but by the fact that the country had slid into an economic recession as well. Unfortunately for Republicans in general, the fact that the economic downturn began after the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 did not register with voters. This does not imply that congressional Republicans were blameless in the economic decline as well, for they had long before abandoned the conservative principles of limited government and prudent spending that had brought them to power in 1994. The economic boom during the middle of this decade, brought about largely by the tax rate cuts in 2001 and 2003, caused them to forget who it was that brought them to the dance.  

The backlash that has taken place since the ascension of the most radically leftwing government in our nation’s history is proof that, in general, Americans do not like big government or the type of profligate spending that is taking place. They do not like the prospects of imposing upon our children and grandchildren high taxes and nanny-state environments like those, which exist throughout Europe. The Obama-Reid-Pelosi cabal in Washington has paid no heed to the voices of the American people as expressed in the tea parties and townhall meetings that have taken place since early this year. A complicit media has played along with this deception by either ignoring the activities or denigrating those who have been pointing out the destruction of America’s laws, economic well-being, and values by those holding power in Washington.  

There is a conservative tide rising in America, and those who are part of it sincerely hope that the Republican Party joins the movement for its own survival. The conventional strategy of offering to the voters a slate of moderate candidates who run on platforms of compromise and bipartisanship will not succeed in 2010, if for no other reason than they will turn off the party’s base. Even more important is that the moderate strategy will not offer a clear alternative to those independent voters and conservative Democrats who now abhor what they see is happening in our country. To borrow Barry Goldwater’s famous phrase from 1964, it is time for the GOP to offer “…a choice, not an echo”.   

It will not be enough for the GOP to merely oppose everything that the Left is doing, nor to simply campaign with patriotic platitudes and statements of constitutional principles, as so many spokespersons of the Right are wont to do. Instead, its leaders and candidates will have to recognize and focus on the key issues that concern to the largest number of American voters, such as the economy, healthcare, the environment, and the war. The next step will be to develop a conservative-based platform and offer realistic alternative plans to deal with those issues; plans that appeal to the public while conforming to conservative principles and values. By no means will this be a simple task, given an antagonistic media and the rampant entitlement mentality that has overtaken the nation’s psyche. Finally, the Party must provide candidates who can most effectively present those plans, and convince voters not only that “We can do it!”, but rather, that “We will do it, and do it better.”  

Related articles: 

Is the Republican Label Irrelevant?
by Bay Buchanan
November 2, 2009 at Townhall.com 

It’s the End of the Party (as We Know It)
by Nathaniel Givens
November 2, 2009 at America’s Right 

Bye-Bye, RINO
by Pamela Geller
November 02, 2009 at American Thinker

 (0) Comments                Post comment

Hope for the Future
America's youth are fine. It is up to the older generations to give them the chance to live up to their potential.
Jack Ott
November 16, 2009 

My work in the Conservative Movement had brought me in frequent contact with serious and dedicated young people, usually of college age, who are as devoted to traditional American values and principles as are the conservatives of my own generation. However, I still frequently hear or read comments suggesting that today’s youth are poorly educated and liberally indoctrinated, not interested in the really important things that will shape their lives in the future.   

This is a standard generational complaint that goes back to Greek and Roman times. Older members of societies have always lamented the direction (or the perceived lack, thereof) that the youth of their eras were taking. It was as if there was never any hope for the future. I clearly recall when my own pre-baby boomer generation was derided as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and Bill Haley and the Comets started bringing forth loud noises from the radios and 45-rpm record players of the time. During the late 1960s and early ‘70s an entire generation was written off as one that had no feelings for patriotism and were far more interested in making “love, not war”, as many of them protested our involvement in Vietnam.   Today is no different. Many of us who now make up what is usually referred to as “the Establishment” argue that today’s young people have little or no regard for traditional American values and principles, show little responsibility or commitment, and are usually taken up with video games and social networking on the internet.  

A recent experience not only fortified my respect for America’s youth today, but also expanded my confidence in them and the future of our country. It came by way of an invitation to serve on a selection board for nominations to the four U.S. military academies in 2010. I was contacted by the Air Force Academy Association of Graduates (AOG), and was told that Colorado Senator Mark Udall had received over 250 applications for appointments to the academies from students around the state, and had requested assistance in evaluating them. The Senator had contacted the AOG for assistance, recognizing that past graduates would be more adequately able to select the most qualified candidates to be nominees for academy appointments.  

Similar applications had been sent to the other state Senator, as well as to the seven members of Congress in the House of Representatives. Each senator and representative would then select one principle candidate and nine or ten alternates for each of the four academies. During the last few months, similar selection boards had met at various locations around the state.  

As a member of a three-person team, I had the opportunity to interview eighteen high school or college students, and I can honestly state that almost all of them would have been successful at any of the academies and as future military officers. As objective as the process and the evaluators tried to be, a certain amount of subjectivity was unavoidable. We could only hope that our judgment and experience allowed us to make the correct selections. 

Among the 18 candidates that the teams I served with interviewed, all were at or near the top of their high school class in academic grades, and most had been appointed to the prestigious National Honor Society. All had scored well above average on the National Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and/or the American College Testing (ACT) test. Just as significantly, all but a few had participated in one or more high school varsity sports, and several had been selected as team captains. All had been actively involved in other extra-curricular activities in high school such as coaching, mentoring, debate, student council, or the student newspaper. All had held summer jobs, and several were active in church groups or performed other charitable work in their communities. One candidate had been a 4-H champion, and another had one awards at several county and state shooting competitions. 

I came away from these interviews with an appreciation that the competition was not this strong when I applied for an appointment to The Air Force Academy. These young people are the crème de la crème of America’s youth. There is no doubt, however, that there are many more with similar résumés who did not apply for appointments to military academies. It is for these others, as well as for those who will not receive academy appointments, that I reserve a measure of concern. I sincerely hope that they are not swallowed up in the cult of mediocrity and entitlement that pervades America today. If I could speak with them individually, I would tell each of them, “Never surrender that ambition, that drive, and that persistence that has brought you this far.” I would go on to say, “You have the ability to be very successful in life, but if you do, you might also become objects of the cult of class envy that has been legitimized by the term ‘social justice’ in our country.” 

We need not worry about the qualities, capabilities, or dedication of the young people of today. Instead, we should be worrying about the country that we will be leaving to that generation. If we do not leave them a country in which they can fulfill their abilities in an environment of freedom and liberty, then it is our generation and those generations closely following ours that have failed. If our foolishness and selfishness leave behind a huge national debt that will deprive these young people of the prosperity and promise that we have experienced, the blame will be on our shoulders, not theirs. If we leave to them a culture that places a higher priority on equal outcomes than on equal opportunities, we will be the ones who abandoned American principles. If we leave them a nation that is too weakened to defend its borders, we will be the cowards and traitors, not them. 

It is not the qualities of our youth with which we need to be concerned. It will be the nation and the world that we leave to them, the nation and world in which they will lead their lives.

 (0) Comments                Post comment

C