New Liberal Order

As we regroup and rethink, it is also good to understand the history of Liberalism and where we are at on that curve. Being so "anti-government" as I am, I was fascinated by this article. It makes sense.

Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008
The New Liberal Order
By Peter Beinart
Time

The death and rebirth of American liberalism both began with flags in Grant Park. On Aug. 28, 1968, 10,000 people gathered there to protest the Democratic Convention taking place a few blocks away, which was about to nominate Lyndon Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, thus implicitly ratifying the hated Vietnam War. Chicago mayor Richard Daley had warned the protesters not to disrupt his city and denied them permits to assemble, but they came anyway. All afternoon, the protesters chanted and the police hovered, until about 3:30, when someone climbed a flagpole and began lowering the American flag.

Police went to arrest the offender and were pelted with eggs, chunks of concrete and balloons filled with paint and urine. The police responded by charging into the crowd, clubbing bystanders and yelling "Kill! Kill!" in what one report later termed a "police riot." Across the country, Americans watching on television gave their verdict: Serves the damn hippies right. Democrats, who had won seven of the previous nine presidential elections, went on to lose seven of the next 10.

Forty years later, happy liberals mobbed Grant Park, invited by another mayor named Richard Daley, to celebrate Barack Obama's election. This time the flags flew proudly at full mast, and the police were there to protect the crowd, not threaten it. Once again, Americans watched on television, and this time they didn't seethe. They wept. (See pictures of Obama's Grant Park celebrations.)

The distance between those two Grant Park scenes says a lot about how American liberalism fell, and why in the Obama era it could become — once again — America's ruling creed. The coalition that carried Obama to victory is every bit as sturdy as America's last two dominant political coalitions: the ones that elected Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. And the Obama majority is sturdy for one overriding reason: liberalism, which average Americans once associated with upheaval, now promises stability instead.

The Search for Order
In America, political majorities live or die at the intersection of two public yearnings: for freedom and for order. A century ago, in the Progressive Era, modern American liberalism was born, in historian Robert Wiebe's words, as a "search for order." America's giant industrial monopolies, the progressives believed, were turning capitalism into a jungle, a wild and lawless place where only the strong and savage survived. By the time Roosevelt took office during the Great Depression, the entire ecosystem appeared to be in a death spiral, with Americans crying out for government to take control. F.D.R. did — juicing the economy with unprecedented amounts of government cash, creating new protections for the unemployed and the elderly, and imposing rules for how industry was to behave. Conservatives wailed that economic freedom was under assault, but most ordinary Americans thanked God that Washington was securing their bank deposits, helping labor unions boost their wages, giving them a pension when they retired and pumping money into the economy to make sure it never fell into depression again. They didn't feel unfree; they felt secure. For three and a half decades, from the mid-1930s through the '60s, government imposed order on the market. The jungle of American capitalism became a well-tended garden, a safe and pleasant place for ordinary folks to stroll. Americans responded by voting for F.D.R.-style liberalism — which even most Republican politicians came to accept — in election after election. (Read a TIME cover story on F.D.R.)

By the beginning of the 1960s, though, liberalism was becoming a victim of its own success. The post-World War II economic boom flooded America's colleges with the children of a rising middle class, and it was those children, who had never experienced life on an economic knife-edge, who began to question the status quo, the tidy, orderly society F.D.R. had built. For blacks in the South, they noted, order meant racial apartheid. For many women, it meant confinement to the home. For everyone, it meant stifling conformity, a society suffocated by rules about how people should dress, pray, imbibe and love. In 1962, Students for a Democratic Society spoke for what would become a new, baby-boom generation "bred in at least modest comfort," which wanted less order and more freedom. And it was this movement for racial, sexual and cultural liberation that bled into the movement against Vietnam and assembled in August 1968 in Grant Park.

Traditional liberalism died there because Americans — who had once associated it with order — came to associate it with disorder instead. For a vast swath of the white working class, racial freedom came to mean riots and crime; sexual freedom came to mean divorce; and cultural freedom came to mean disrespect for family, church and flag. Richard Nixon and later Reagan won the presidency by promising a new order: not economic but cultural, not the taming of the market but the taming of the street.

See scenes from voting day.

See the campaign in T Shirts.

The Receding Right
Flash forward to the evening of Nov. 4, and you can see why liberalism has sprung back to life. Ideologically, the crowds who assembled to hear Obama on election night were linear descendants of those egg throwers four decades before. They too believe in racial equality, gay rights, feminism, civil liberties and people's right to follow their own star. But 40 years later, those ideas no longer seem disorderly. Crime is down and riots nonexistent; feminism is so mainstream that even Sarah Palin embraces the term; Chicago mayor Richard Daley, son of the man who told police to bash heads, marches in gay-rights parades. Culturally, liberalism isn't that scary anymore. Younger Americans — who voted overwhelmingly for Obama — largely embrace the legacy of the '60s, and yet they constitute one of the most obedient, least rebellious generations in memory. The culture war is ending because cultural freedom and cultural order — the two forces that faced off in Chicago in 1968 — have turned out to be reconcilable after all.

The disorder that panics Americans now is not cultural but economic. If liberalism collapsed in the 1960s because its bid for cultural freedom became associated with cultural disorder, conservatism has collapsed today because its bid for economic freedom has become associated with economic disorder. When Reagan took power in 1981, he vowed to restore the economic liberty that a half-century of F.D.R.-style government intrusion had stifled. American capitalism had become so thoroughly domesticated, he argued, that it lost its capacity for dynamic growth. For a time, a majority of Americans agreed. Taxes and regulations were cut and cut again, and for the most part, the economic pie grew. In the 1980s and '90s, the garden of American capitalism became a pretty energetic place. But it became a scarier place too. In the newly deregulated American economy, fewer people had job security or fixed-benefit pensions or reliable health care. Some got rich, but a lot went bankrupt, mostly because of health-care costs. As Yale University political scientist Jacob Hacker has noted, Americans today experience far-more-violent swings in household income than did their parents a generation ago. (See pictures of the 1958 recession.)

Starting in the 1990s, average Americans began deciding that the conservative economic agenda was a bit like the liberal cultural agenda of the 1960s: less liberating than frightening. When the Gingrich Republicans tried to slash Medicare, the public turned on them en masse. A decade later, when George W. Bush tried to partially privatize Social Security, Americans rebelled once again. In 2005 a Pew Research Center survey identified a new group of voters that it called "pro-government conservatives." They were culturally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy, and they overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004. But by large majorities, they endorsed government regulation and government spending. They didn't want to unleash the free market; they wanted to rein it in.

Those voters were a time bomb in the Republican coalition, which detonated on Nov. 4. John McCain's promises to cut taxes, cut spending and get government out of the way left them cold. Among the almost half of voters who said they were "very worried" that the economic crisis would hurt their family, Obama beat McCain by 26 points. (See pictures of Obama's campaign.)

The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order — to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas — and they don't much care whose heads Washington has to bash to do it.

Seizing the Moment
That is both Obama's great challenge and his great opportunity. If he can do what F.D.R. did — make American capitalism stabler and less savage — he will establish a Democratic majority that dominates U.S. politics for a generation. And despite the daunting problems he inherits, he's got an excellent chance. For one thing, taking aggressive action to stimulate the economy, regulate the financial industry and shore up the American welfare state won't divide his political coalition; it will divide the other side. On domestic economics, Democrats up and down the class ladder mostly agree. Even among Democratic Party economists, the divide that existed during the Clinton years between deficit hawks like Robert Rubin and free spenders like Robert Reich has largely evaporated, as everyone has embraced a bigger government role. Today it's Republicans who — though more unified on cultural issues — are split badly between upscale business types who want government out of the way and pro-government conservatives who want Washington's help. If Obama moves forcefully to restore economic order, the Wall Street Journal will squawk about creeping socialism, as it did in F.D.R.'s day, but many downscale Republicans will cheer. It's these working-class Reagan Democrats who could become tomorrow's Obama Republicans — a key component of a new liberal majority — if he alleviates their economic fears. See pictures of former Presidents Clinton and Bush.

Obama doesn't have to turn the economy around overnight. After all, Roosevelt hadn't ended the Depression by 1936. Obama just needs modest economic improvement by the time he starts running for re-election and an image as someone relentlessly focused on fixing America's economic woes. In allocating his time in his first months as President, he should remember what voters told exit pollsters they cared about most — 63% said the economy. (No other issue even exceeded 10%.)

In politics, crisis often brings opportunity. If Obama restores some measure of economic order, kick-starting U.S. capitalism and softening its hard edges, and if he develops the kind of personal rapport with ordinary Americans that F.D.R. and Reagan had — and he has the communication skills to do it — liberals will probably hold sway in Washington until Sasha and Malia have kids. As that happens, the arguments that have framed economic debate in recent times — for large upper-income tax cuts or the partial privatization of Social Security and Medicare — will fade into irrelevance. In an era of liberal hegemony, they will seem as archaic as defending the welfare system became when conservatives were on top.

See pictures of the world reacting to Obama's win.

See pictures of presidential First Dogs.

A New Consensus
There are fault lines in the Obama coalition, to be sure. In a two-party system, it's impossible to construct a majority without bringing together people who disagree on big things. But Obama's majority is at least as cohesive as Reagan's or F.D.R.'s. The cultural issues that have long divided Democrats — gay marriage, gun control, abortion — are receding in importance as a post-'60s generation grows to adulthood. Foreign policy doesn't divide Democrats as bitterly as it used to either because, in the wake of Iraq, once-hawkish working-class whites have grown more skeptical of military force. In 2004, 22% of voters told exit pollsters that "moral values" were their top priority, and 19% said terrorism. This year terrorism got 9%, and no social issues even made the list.

The biggest potential land mine in the Obama coalition isn't the culture war or foreign policy; it's nationalism. On a range of issues, from global warming to immigration to trade to torture, college-educated liberals want to integrate more deeply America's economy, society and values with the rest of the world's. They want to make it easier for people and goods to legally cross America's borders, and they want global rules that govern how much America can pollute the atmosphere and how it conducts the war on terrorism. They believe that ceding some sovereignty is essential to making America prosperous, decent and safe. When it comes to free trade, immigration and multilateralism, though, downscale Democrats are more skeptical. In the future, the old struggle between freedom and order may play itself out on a global scale, as liberal internationalists try to establish new rules for a more interconnected planet and working-class nationalists protest that foreign bureaucrats threaten America's freedom.

But that's in the future. If Obama begins restoring order to the economy, Democrats will reap the rewards for a long time. Forty years ago, liberalism looked like the problem in a nation spinning out of control. Today a new version of it may be the solution. It's a very different day in Grant Park.

Beinart is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations See pictures of the Civil Rights' Ground Zero.

Ground Game

I was just reading a recap on some of the discussions held at the Republican Governors Conference in Miami this week. Yes, there is alot of soul searching, Sarah praising and political positioning, but the biggest revelation was the praise given to Obama's Ground Game. I laughed.

When we opened our McCain Palin headquarters the final month of elections, people asked us why we weren't open during the week day (we only had evening and weekend hours). I jokingly said that Republicans work for a living. That statement is almost too eerily true when we look at the demographics and logistics of the "Ground Game".

I know I took a big hit in my professional/financial life when I focused my efforts on this election. I don't get paid for this effort. I do it out of a profound belief in the outcome of elections. It does matter who governs. I am not alone in this passion. We all took a hit financially for doing what we believe in.

But look at the demographics of the Obama "Ground Game":

ACORN workers - partially funded by government and Obama, one sole focus
Out-of-work workers - funded by government, with a lot of time on their hands
College students - funded by parents or government loans, probably shouldn't have had all that time on their hands
Media - funded by employers to pay homage to Obama or allowed to do so
Trust fund babies - funded by a tax free entity, with a lot of time on their hands
Educators - funded by government, should have used their influence on their own time

Now let's look at the demographics of the McCain "Ground Game":

Self Employed or Entrepreneurs - Self funded, not alot of time on their hands
Retirees - Self funded, more time on their hands than most
Women - Self funded, worked it in between a million other family duties
Young People - Self funded, not alot to time but were brought up to get involved

Yes, there are cross overs for everything and this is an over generalization, but do you see the trends? How do you compete with that?

I guess that is where the conundrum lies as we regroup and rethink the process.

America: Not Liberal Yet

Post election analysis is always a favorite reading topic of mine. And everything I have read validates my initial negative reaction to John McCain's primary win. Why? He wasn't a Conservative. But in fairness, I was also apart of that pragmatic group who believed that America had moved so far towards the center, that maybe McCain was the next generation of leadership. Dead-on Center. But I was wrong. Very wrong.

I am embarrassed to say I fell into the same trap that so many Conservative Republicans have also fallen into. I forgot my raisin' and lost the basic principles that make me a Conservative. And yes, the Sarah Palin VP pick lulled me into thinking I was working for the Conservative cause this election.

So as we regroup, I think we need to get back to basics and remember our raisin'. Contrary to these election results, I don't think America is Liberal yet. Just ask the far left Californians who voted for traditional marriage. There is hope. We just need to be who we are and not apologize for it. Barack Obama didn't.

The article I am sharing with you today is from a black, conservative woman named Star Parker. She came on my radar in 2001 when I heard her speak at a women's luncheon in the heart of conservative country USA (Dupage County, IL). She has quite a story if you want to google her sometime. Single mom in the projects who made good thru faith, hard work and perserverence not government diversity handouts. My kind of gal!

Written by Star Parker

John McCain has a knack for the bizarre. But he outdid himself, appearing on Saturday Night Live the weekend before election day to make fun of it all.
It was evident from the polls that only a miracle could pull this election off for McCain. But the SNL appearance made it clear that there would be no miracle.
Why would Americans, sitting on the political fence, riddled with doubt and worried about their future, vote for a man running to be their president who could satirize the campaign two days before they would go to vote? The man telling them that their sons and daughters must remain to fight in Iraq, that the future of the nation supposedly rides on his message, making it all a big joke?

McCain's strange sense of propriety, of nobility, of being the gentleman, is to be above it all. So days before a crucial election he could play the clown on national TV. Yes, of course, the message is important. But he showed, for him, most important is process, not principle.

This accounts for McCain's also bizarre suspension of his campaign, at a crucial time after the Republican convention, when he was picking up momentum, to be part of the process in Washington to produce a bank bailout package.

The initial months of a new presidency, as we are about to witness once again, are crucial. A newly elected president uses the opportunity to demonstrate leadership, consolidate power, and begin moving his agenda.

When George W. Bush was elected to his first term, it was clear in those critical early days that there were already cracks in the Republican vessel. When Republicans on Capitol Hill should have been marching in lockstep with their new president, taking over after eight years of a Democrat in the White House, there was a distracting voice in the Senate. John McCain. What was his obsession? Campaign finance reform.

A new Republican president needed to move a conservative agenda and a key Republican senator deflected focus with his personal obsession with process and not principles.
Back to the current campaign, we have McCain's troubled selection of Sarah Palin. Did McCain pick a conservative Christian because of his own convictions? Of course not. He concluded he had to placate the evangelical base. Did he move to find the best and most qualified person? Someone that voters could readily picture moving into the oval office if necessary? No, he wanted a woman to appeal to women.
Process, not principle.

Our nation is troubled today. Americans are worried and confused.
We are in a fog and Senator Obama held up his light and said follow me. John McCain touted his prowess at working with senators of the other party.
Now, of course, the soul-searching begins for the future of the Republican Party. The antidotes are flowing. So much pain and so little learned.

How can it be that even now many suggest that the problems of the party relate to process? They suggest that the party platform must change to appeal to this new constituency or reach out to that one?

Who is asking what do we believe to be true? What principles are crucial to assure that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be born into and grow up in a strong and prosperous nation?

Those who suggest that Americans have turned liberal are not paying attention. In California, as Obama captured 61 percent of the popular vote. In the same election, Californians passed Proposition 8 — getting 71 percent of the black vote and 53 percent of the Latino vote — to codify traditional marriage in the state constitution
The future of the Republican Party is not in process but in restoring leadership for traditional American principles that are relevant to every demographic group, to every ethnic group, in every time.

Let the work begin.

Peaceful Thoughts

I can't think of anything else to add...how about you?

Recent Email:
While the election results admittedly make it difficult, I am generally an optimist, and I'm not changing my stripes now. Obama has truly awful, awful ideas for our country, but I do not believe even he can ruin it. So here's what I feel good about right now:
* The next time someone - perhaps looking up from their Sunday New York Times- tries to tell you we live in a pervasively racist society, you can tell them to just shut the f*** up.
* Since their services are no longer required, we can send Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson off to their long-overdue retirements, perhaps to Charlie Rangel's place in the Dominican Republic.
* While we're at it, can we all decide that if blacks can rise to the presidency, it follows that we no longer need affirmative action? Time to put it in the ground.
* The constructionists on the Supreme Court should be able to hold out another four years before they retire. We wish them the best of health.
* We won't have to spend four years defending John McCain. Let's face it, he was a crummy candidate who wilted on most issues important to conservatives. It would have been four painful years followed by a lay-up election for...Obama or Hillary.
* With the economy in the tank, Obama may have somewhat limited flexibility. His plans to turn us into Finland may have to wait.
* Jimmy Carter was a painful experience, but he gave us (cue heavenly choir music) Ronald Reagan. Will Obama give us a Bobby Jindal? Tim Pawlenty? Rudy? We have a deep bench. Start thinking ahead now.
* Since the Democrats control both houses and the White House, there will be no one else to blame when they screw up, which is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow. While they will try to pin any problems on George Bush for at least the next millennia, the people will know better.
* The media has now officially been "outed" as in the tank for the Democrat Party. Even liberals know it. MSM credibility has never been so low.
* The New York Times was just demoted to junk bond status by the ratings agencies.

Hide Your Guns

I live in the woods. Guns are not only a right but a fashion accessory in these parts. I was at a job site the other day and the topic came up about guns and the next thing I knew everyone was pulling out their pieces from various and asundry hidden places (some I didn't care to know about)to compare features...it was almost comical. There is something downright sexy about a man who knows how to handle a gun.

So as we go into this next presidency, I issue a word of warning...STOCK UP!!!

See how Illinois gun owners feel about BHO and tell me I am wrong!


The Real Obama—From Someone Who Knows

Friday, October 24, 2008

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's TRUE History in the Illinois Senate

We've repeatedly warned readers not to believe Barack Obama when he claims to support our Second Amendment rights. We have told you the truth--that Barack Obama is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history! Hands down. No question. Barack Obama opposes the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding, freedom-loving, American firearm owners.

We've given the facts, and provided the documentation. But if you know someone who's still not convinced, you'll want to share with them a recent, open letter to our nation's gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen, written by Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) Executive Director Richard Pearson. Pearson's credentials include deep involvement in the firearm rights movement for more than 40 years. He's been the chief lobbyist for the ISRA for the past 15 years. And, most importantly, because of his personal experience, he knows Barack Obama's true stance on the Second Amendment.

In his letter, Mr. Pearson says, "I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama."

Mr. Pearson goes on to describe just some of Obama's anti-gun voting record, saying, "While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns." Obama also voted FOUR TIMES against legislation that would protect a homeowner who use a firearm in defense of home and family!

It doesn't get much plainer than that, folks. This letter is a must-read for every pro-freedom, pro-self-defense, pro-Second Amendment American.

To read the entire letter, please click here. Then be sure to forward the link to every Second Amendment supporter you know. The truth about Obama's stance on firearms and the Second Amendment needs to be told—again!

To see Obama's whole record for yourself, please visit www.GunBanObama.com.

A New Day

I am physically and mentally exhausted. But for all the bad news federally, there are some very sweet victories here locally and in the state.

Grundy County, our campaign territory, went Republican this election for the first time in history. Our people finally voted their convictions, Obama's Democratic Party is definitely not their Democratic party. There is hope!

In our state elections, we will no longer be under the thug rule of Jimmy Naifeh. Yes folks, it is a brand new day in state legislation. Our fearless leader in the Senate, Lt.Governor Ron Ramsey, now has a secure 5 seat majority and we will now have a new SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE in the now REPUBLICAN majority House...only the second time since the beginning history of our state (the first was a two year stint 1968-70)!! Go Jason Mumpower!!

As a person who spends a great deal of time shaking her head at the insanity of Jimmy Naifeh, I can't tell you what this means for Tennesseans. Finally, some logical legislation and hopefully, a lot of REPEALING of bad laws already on the books. The good guys will finally have their day!

So here in my little neck of the woods, I will cling to my guns and my Bible and prepare for the next election. I think the KoolAid will wear off and people will finally get what they ask for...and really not like it. That is when we will be ready. We have some awesome people on the home team. It really has been a great election year all in all.

Eerie Calm

As we enter the final hours of the Presidential campaign, I have entered the "Eerie Calm" stage of the process. The hard work has been done, the final checklist is being put in place and the poll watching party is the carrot at the end of the stick to make it thru the long day on Tuesday. Boy, will I be glad when this is finally over. Win or lose, we have done what we could for the conservative movement in our little mountain paradise. And as any good warrior at the end of a siege, I will help gather the wounded, fall back to a stronghold and help plan the next battle.

Why do we do this? Everyone has their own personal reason for getting involved in the political process, but it usually revolves around how we were brought up. Unfortunatly, there has been generations of people who have benefited from the freedoms of our country but haven't upheld their end of the bargain which is to protect and defend those freedoms for the next generation. Our people have lost their edge over the years and the downward spiral to complacency and apathy has overtaken the American psyche...the final death stages of freedom are upon us. This surreal election is a sympton of the process, not the cause.

Why am I in this? This effort is for my children's future. My tour of duty has just begun...and it is not going to be an easy one.

Democracies Die when Liberty Gives Way to Dependence...Terry Paulson.

McCain has Joe the Plummer. Obama has Peggy Joseph. Interviewed after an Obama campaign event in Sarasota, Florida, Peggy emotionally summarized what it means to her for Barack Obama to be president: "It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment, because I never thought this day would happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I, if I help him [Barack], he’s gonna help me!"

If that doesn’t send fears down your spine, ponder the words of the Scottish jurist and historian, Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler. Over 200 years ago, he provided a chilling observation on the fall of the Athenian Republic. America has been a beacon of liberty and hope for our citizens and the world for over 230 years. But Tytler warned of the natural rise and fall of every democracy:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence; from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage."

Our next president will set America's course for the next decade. We’re running deficits in Washington and most of our major states. The growing costs for Medicare, employee pensions, and social security are out of control, and there's no political consensus or will to deal with these runaway entitlements. We vote to approve bonds that don’t raise taxes now but pass more debt on to future generations.

In America today, it's hard to win elections by talking about cutting government spending—saying "no" to anything or anyone at election time is a sure way of losing votes. As a result, too many Americans are becoming addicted to government saving them from their own failure to live within their means. Democrats play the enabler! Capitalizing on that addiction, Democrats promise more if Americans just give them full control in Washington.

Starting during President Johnson's term, our country tried spending our way to becoming a very compassionate country. Over three decades, our government invested 5.4 trillion dollars in welfare payments in our "War on Poverty." The investment would have been worth it, if it had worked, but it didn't eliminate poverty.

In fact, the results of this type of government-run compassion have been devastating, creating a debilitating dependence on the very programs that were designed to help. Ronald Reagan said it well: "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence."

Compassion should be measured by how many people no longer need government programs instead of by how many are served by them. We need a safety net, not a hammock. As our first Republican President Abraham Lincoln said, "The worst thing you can do for those you love is the thing they could and should do for themselves."

We've gone from protecting the unfortunate to supporting the irresponsible. In fact, many liberal politicians seem to want to keep citizens dependent on government. They hate poverty so much that they reward it!

Unfortunately, whatever you reward you get more of! So if my response to your entry-level job is to raise your minimum wage beyond its market value, you're more likely to stay in that dead-end job. Why go to college or learn a new skill if you can get enough money settling for a job with minimum skills?

Republicans support economic tough love that challenges all citizens to better themselves. A free-market economy rewards achievement and not anything less. Is that mean-spirited? We loved our son enough to teach him early that in a competitive world you don’t get everything you want just because you want it. We showed him our love, but we also let him know that he would experience the consequences for his own choices. If he didn't save his money, he wouldn't have money to spend. If he got in trouble in school, he'd be accountable not excused.

In America, all citizens are guaranteed "the pursuit of happiness," not happiness given to them by a controlling government. Democrats would have you believe that every American is entitled to full healthcare, welfare, and high wages whether they've earned it or not. And, of course, who is supposed to pay for all these entitlements, those greedy, "wealthy" Americans who already pay most of the taxes! Will Rogers said it years ago, "I remember back when a liberal was someone who was generous with his own money."

Gerald Ford summed it up well, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Socialism is not new. It's failed wherever it has been tried. It won’t help you achieve your dreams; it will only punish and stifle your success! Obama believes you can't live the American Dream without taking your neighbor's money to give you another entitlement. That's not the American Dream; that's a nightmare.