College Republicans ‘Guardedly Optimistic’ About Obama

Well it is good to see that the college republicans are willing to listen..
The republican party is in a whole lot of trouble though.. they unfortunately will not follow the young one and play typical obstructionists..
Just like obama said the cynics don’t realize the sea has shifted.. they are the party that is gonna suffer what the dems suffered with Reagan… because obama’s win is transformational.
The republican party is like 20 years behind..

The GOP is composed mainly of upper class white Americans. Until the GOP becomes sensitive to the needs and wants of the black and hispanic populations, it will continue to be a minority party and not win any more national elections.

beto said “The GOP is composed mainly of upper class white Americans” What a sweeping generalization and misconception.
The problem is basic philosophical differences. I believe that government should stay out of our lives. I don’t want or need the government to take care of me. Obama is going to propose programs because he thinks government knows better than the people what is good for them – no matter what he says about personal responsibility.

I figured I check out what the article whose title was taken from one of my statements. While not a entirely a bad piece, there are some things I like to clarify.
I did state that it was time for Americans to set aside our differences so that we could get to the task of fixing our country. That does not exactly translate into “setting aside my differences” overall, nor me abandoning the positions I support regarding issues of national importance. Rather my point was that inauguration day is an event which embodies the idea that all Americans citizens share a common bond – even if we disagree – in some cases vehemently – on issues. Inauguration day, an event that was paid for by many soldiers that came before me (I served in the United States Army for over 10 years) is not the time for Americans to attack one another.
All that said what such a statement does not translate into is a rollover / pass on the position that I support regarding issues of national importance, nor the criticisms I have regarding many of the positions taken by President Obama’s administration. Make no mistake I still support preventative warfare (both Afghanistan and Iraq – I would have included Iran and Syria) as well as global missile defenses and orbital space dominance. I still support nationalized preventative based health care. I still support tax cuts, as well as a re allocation of national will away from failed social entitlement programs (like social security) towards investments in productivity (like focused education, R&D / S&T in leading sectors of current and supplanting K waves, energy independence and infrastructure). I most certainly still support the Patriot Act.
My guarded optimism regarding President Obama stems from the fact that not all of his current positions (far different then the rhetoric that comprised his election platform) are mutually exclusive to the ones that I support. It is that fact that makes me guardedly optimistic. For example while there are definite politically strategic motives behind keeping on Sec Def Gates, I am glad that president Obama had the sense to not change sec def in the middle of two wars even though he could have as is his right to do
Finally in closing I would like to point out some differences between how Republicans and Democrats behave after a hotly contested election. For example after George W. Bush won the 2000 election the outgoing people within the Clinton administration took it upon themselves to engage in the childish behavior of stealing all the “W’s” from the keyboards in the Whitehouse. Conversely President Bush acted with grace and dignity in being as helpful to the incoming Obama administration as was possible. Unlike the wannabe evolutionary socialists that masquerade as democrats and liberals – true liberalism means you support lassie fair free market economics – I don’t see republicans making completely disdainful comments about President Obama, nothing similar to the ad hom hyperbole defined as calling President Bush “chimp” or “shrub” or a “cowboy” – as if a cowboy was a bad thing. Understand if they did or do I would chastise such behavior as I did and do regarding democrats and President Bush.
Yes I dislike how President Obama won (200 million $ from undisclosed sources overseas) yes I dislike the fact that the urban community voted for him based almost solely on identity politics – identity politics itself left over legacy remnants of the sociological war levied against the United States via the Soviet Union. Yes I dislike that he voted against Iraq and was himself an obstructionist – specifically regarding our interventionist foreign policy in Iraq and the Patriot Act. All that said the election is over, the time for fighting is over and unlike how the democrats acted after both the 2000 / 2004 Presidential election, if there is anything I can do to help our new President – dislike and all – I will do so because I love America more then I dislike President Obama. Such help includes trying to illustrate why policies and positions I hold regarding issues of national importance are crucial to addressing those issues. It also means having an open mind about policies that President Obama administration will implement. Both advice and listening to be qualified via empiricism, empiricism supported by raw data derived from primary information sources. Such sources do not include op eds from third party information sources like the New York times, nor advocacy groups like “democracy now” or “project pink”. Further I have not nor would not base my advice on the likes of Fox News or P.N.A.C. When the discourse in this country denigrates to such paltry levels our country / fellow countrymen and due to our position of primacy / system leader – the world’s only hyper power – our world suffers for it.

Wow so many left wing jingoisms where to begin.
“Most people today use the term liberalism not when applied to economics but towards social issues and ideas, hence why the Republican party and people like yourself(neoconservatives) disparagingly call anyone a little left of center and even centrists(though that term is arguable as conservatives, even extreme ones tend to call themselves centrists and all Democrats liberals; hint: anarchists are extremist liberals) “libs”.”
Straw man argument, if you bothered to read what I stated the literal definition of “liberalism” mean that you subscribe to personal freedom to include economic freedom – lassie fare free marketism. Evolutionary socialist “co opted” the term as they did many things in attempts to legitimize their sedition. I make it a point to correct my fellow republicans when they misuse the term as I do not want to give a socialist a place to hide.
“I am one of those “obstructionists” since the Patriot Act was complete bs.”
I doubt you understand in any real depth what the Patriot Act is or does. Seeing as among my many degrees my Bachelorette of Science was in Strategic Intelligence with a concentration in counter terrorism I can illustrate in detail why the Patriot Act is absolutely crucial to ensuring the security of the United States. Keeping the proximate extra state security concern colloquially referred to as GWOT some key points that come to mind would be the fact that United States human intelligence and counter intelligence was eviscerated by the democrats during the church hearing of 1976, to say nothing of Clintons intelligence sanitization initiatives. I could go into more detail but I am not about to type out white paper on this web page.
“Dignity had nothing to do with this, you tell me about dignity and I’ll tell you how many times Republicans were left wanting in dignity.”
Even if what you said was true – which it is not – your “rebuttal” is nothing but the logical fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Even if republicans acted in a less then dignified manner, specifically on the scope or scale similar to what the left illustrated after President Bush was elected in 2000 that would not undermine the legitimacy of my criticism regarding the difference between the lefts childish behavior after President Bush election in 2000 and the professionalism illustrated by the Bush Administration after Barak got elected
“Also “preventative warfare” as you call it, is attacking preemptively as in the same thing Germany did to France and Poland. “
Sigh, Goodwin’s law raises its ugly head again. You attempts to make a comparison of correlation between the actions of Nazi Germany and the United States smacks of “reduction ad hitlarium” – whimsical Latin for “reduction to Hitler”. That aside your attempts to correct my definition are n fact incorrect. Preventative and pre emptive warfare are not the same. The difference is in the nature of the pro-activeness each represents. Pre Emptive warfare is warfare levied against an adversary that has the ability to attack you is getting ready to attack you. Preventative warfare is eliminating a threat before it obtains the ability to hurt you. Using your example of Nazi Germany, preventative warfare would be hitting Nazi Germany in 1932-34. Conversely pre emptive warfare would be attacking Nazi Germany in 1938.
I know what you will run too “ see that means that Sadam was not a threat”. Such comments illustrate a person lack of understanding regarding security studies because it fails to take into account the fact that the advancement of transportation technology reducing the loss of strength gradient and stopping power of water. Such realities dictate that the United States could not afford to wait till Sadam fully reconstituted his WMD capability before we removed his regime.
“I suppose you meant to say “preventive” warfare in that you wanted to prevent terrorism to spread but guess what, Bush’s policies probably helped make a whole new generation of terrorists particularly those that lost parents anywhere near where the US military was present. “
So your solution is to do nothing? I would contend that contrary to what you are fed in the left wing media- there are many in both of those countries that are very happy to have us there.
“This isn’t one or two or even three countries whose ideologies we are up against, it’s many individuals from many middle eastern, mainly Islamic countries(Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Palestine, etc) as well as other countries like North Korea and Venezuela. We can’t logistically have a front in every country, therefore invading a few countries is not going to deter future terrorists the world over. “
While I agree with your clash of civilizations analysis regarding the geo political environment, your comment is base on the misconception that the only force projection options we have is force projection with the goal of conquest – requiring a large ground force foot print. There are many other options that can be used military (which I will not go into here) and otherwise that do not require such a large presence.
“Wasted resources and we created more future terrorists in the process. Also Republicans also own the term “big government” as you put it, just look at what Bush did.”
I as a neo conservative support more public involvement – so long as such involvement is a investment in productivity and not a mere increase in social entitlement programs. What lefties own is the term big and inefficient government. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the community reinvestment act 1977 authored by carter and the democrats and the financial debacle we are in right now. Look at the porkulass bill that President Obama and Dems authored and pushed through for that mater. I am not saying that something has to be done, Barak bill just doesn’t do what needs to be done.