The left and the right are divided into the way they see the world and how they choose to respond to the problems presented to them. They follow their beliefs in how things should be constructed and how lives should be led. The philosophy of government is one of many examples of where liberal and conservative ideology call for the government to perform different tasks and operate differently.
Left-The major difference between liberals and conservatives is the size of government. The left is quite happy with an ever increasing government. The size of government corresponds to the many things in which liberals ask the government to provide for its citizens. The result is a government rich with entitlements. These entitlements usually are called for as a proper right of the citizen and a guaranteed part of life. Whereas a conservative might see the private sector as a better distributor of services, liberals tend to rely on the government. For liberals the social problems of the society are to be corrected by the government. This may lead to programs being instituted to seek to eliminate those problems, welfare, racial inequity, etc. The result is that many problems are not solved or regulation is implemented to such a degree that it has a discouraging effect.
Right-Whereas liberals have no problem with an ever-inflating government, conservatives tend to want government as small as possible. This stems from the realization that government cannot solve every problem and should not attempt to do so in many cases. For conservatives would be happier with less control from Washington D.C. and more control being given to the states. Liberty is a main issue with conservatives, the idea of freedom and being left alone. The problem with the government growing they begin to have a bigger say over how you live your life. The right is happier letting markets solve the problem instead of the government in control. The private sector can work more efficiently then the bogged-down bureaucracies of the federal government. The right also believes that taxes can be lowered along with reduced spending instead of a large government that seek to punishes successful individuals with high taxes.
How do you want you government? You will have a clear choice this election.
Showing posts with label Washington D.C.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington D.C.. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Many Asking What Happened?
If there is one thing that Washington D.C. loves it is a good tell-all. The pundits and press were welcomed to just such a prize with Scott McClellan’s new memoir. McClellan was the White House press secretary from 2003-2006. It is not surprising for Mr. McClellan to write a book after leaving his previous post as many have to so before him. The shock comes with what he had to say in 341 pages. The book lays out very harsh criticisms of the Bush administration including maintaining a constant campaign mode, misleading the public about the war, and the handling of the Valerie Plame case
The attacks are unusual on many fronts. McClellan was seen as being a loyal Bush devotee, going back to his days in Texas. Secondly, in his capacity as press secretary it has been said that his issues or problems with policy were never made known. This has been echoed by former aides to the President including former press secretary Ari Fleischer and key assistant Dan Bartlett. Fleischer reported no misgivings by McClellan when McClellan was his deputy. Others have stated that McClellan was not even in most meetings when policy matters were being discussed or if he was he did not make a contribution.
The question is why? Why, if McClellan had such a strong opposition to what was going on in the White House did he stay for three years? Karl Rove and others have pointed out that the words do not sound like those of McClellan. Some have speculated a publisher’s hand to make the story juicier. Certainly one would expect someone with such strong feelings would either voice them or leave. McClellan is now being questioned on this point. It has to do with the voracity of his words and the timing of this tome. It appears too many to be perhaps a disgruntled employee going for a money grab. If that is the case then this man with the undistinguished White House career can look forward to lonely days ahead. Of course the left is willing to welcome him with open arms.
As much as gossip is loved it is second to none for liberals when it involves a Republican turning on his own. The parade will begin as McClellan starts his book promotion tour. Such notable stops include a stint of Keith Olbermann’s show, the man with a psychotic hatred of President Bush who plays a human being on television. And so it will go as liberals try to wring every last drop out of McClellan until they no longer want him and turn to the next shiny object to come into their view.
Hypocrisy is not new to Washington. It almost appears to be policy for politicians to say one thing and do another. Perhaps that is where McClellan picked up the skill which he has apparently mastered. This is a man who had such a visceral disagreement with what was going on in the White House but never said a word publicly or privately and instead went right along dealing out “propaganda” as he put. His memory for events might prove troublesome as he appears to have forgotten his own feelings about tell-alls. It was he who had trouble with Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke’s books. He calls into question their use of opinion, personal views, and timing of the books, sound familiar Scott? (Read more at Hot Air)
It is hard to say if any fallout will happen as a result of this book. Congressman Robert Wexler, a democrat from Florida, has asked that McClellan come and testify before his committee to discuss the issues raised in his book. Give a democrat an inch and they will take a mile. In the end, the story will eventually leave our consciousness like so many before and we will forget about Scott McClellan, the forgettable man who occupied the space in front of a podium, microphone, and said nothing.
The attacks are unusual on many fronts. McClellan was seen as being a loyal Bush devotee, going back to his days in Texas. Secondly, in his capacity as press secretary it has been said that his issues or problems with policy were never made known. This has been echoed by former aides to the President including former press secretary Ari Fleischer and key assistant Dan Bartlett. Fleischer reported no misgivings by McClellan when McClellan was his deputy. Others have stated that McClellan was not even in most meetings when policy matters were being discussed or if he was he did not make a contribution.
The question is why? Why, if McClellan had such a strong opposition to what was going on in the White House did he stay for three years? Karl Rove and others have pointed out that the words do not sound like those of McClellan. Some have speculated a publisher’s hand to make the story juicier. Certainly one would expect someone with such strong feelings would either voice them or leave. McClellan is now being questioned on this point. It has to do with the voracity of his words and the timing of this tome. It appears too many to be perhaps a disgruntled employee going for a money grab. If that is the case then this man with the undistinguished White House career can look forward to lonely days ahead. Of course the left is willing to welcome him with open arms.
As much as gossip is loved it is second to none for liberals when it involves a Republican turning on his own. The parade will begin as McClellan starts his book promotion tour. Such notable stops include a stint of Keith Olbermann’s show, the man with a psychotic hatred of President Bush who plays a human being on television. And so it will go as liberals try to wring every last drop out of McClellan until they no longer want him and turn to the next shiny object to come into their view.
Hypocrisy is not new to Washington. It almost appears to be policy for politicians to say one thing and do another. Perhaps that is where McClellan picked up the skill which he has apparently mastered. This is a man who had such a visceral disagreement with what was going on in the White House but never said a word publicly or privately and instead went right along dealing out “propaganda” as he put. His memory for events might prove troublesome as he appears to have forgotten his own feelings about tell-alls. It was he who had trouble with Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke’s books. He calls into question their use of opinion, personal views, and timing of the books, sound familiar Scott? (Read more at Hot Air)
It is hard to say if any fallout will happen as a result of this book. Congressman Robert Wexler, a democrat from Florida, has asked that McClellan come and testify before his committee to discuss the issues raised in his book. Give a democrat an inch and they will take a mile. In the end, the story will eventually leave our consciousness like so many before and we will forget about Scott McClellan, the forgettable man who occupied the space in front of a podium, microphone, and said nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
