Showing posts with label centrism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label centrism. Show all posts

Friday, January 31, 2014

A Good Day For Compassionate Conservatism

OK, I'm going to try to make up for saying nasty things aboot Mark Steyn yesterday. Today comes news of two conservatives promoting policies that appeal to us progressive moonbats. First up is Bernard Kerik. Yeah, I can't believe that one either. And yet there are people who say rehabilitation doesn't work. We're pretty sure he was actually in prison and not Obama Camp.

According to a report from the Huffington Post, Kerik, while speaking at a service center for former prisoners in Virginia, was blunt and straightforward: “The system doesn’t work.”

Kerik went on to describe the “broken” system in more detail, emphasizing the negative consequences of locking up so many people, often for nonviolent crimes like possessing small amounts of illegal substances.

He also argued against mandatory minimum laws, which deprive judges of the ability to render sentences they believe appropriate, often forcing them to send people into incarceration for longer than they would if given the choice.

Very nice, Bernie. I'm happy to see you have that come to Chuck Colson moment. Second up on my "I can't believe a Conservative is saying this" list for today is Ron Unz. He wants to raise the minimum wage! And he's a billionaire! I take back most of the bad things I've said about rich Conservatives. This does not yet apply to the Koch's.

(T)he case for raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour—the second highest statewide proposal in the country—isn’t even coming from a Democrat. It’s coming from California Republican multi-millionaire businessman Ron Unz, an ex-gubernatorial candidate, former publisher of the American Conservative and the lone sponsor of a 2014 ballot measure for a statewide $12 minimum wage.

And there's a chance he is not going to be tarred and feathered.

Prominent economists of all ideological persuasions long believed that raising the U.S. minimum wage would retard job growth, creating unintended hardship for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Today, that consensus is eroding, and a vigorous debate has developed as some argue that boosting the wage would pull millions out of poverty.

A moderate increase in the minimum wage won't raise unemployment among low-skilled workers, according to recent studies, many economists say. They are joined by some business executives who say they can live with that, especially if it's coupled with tax relief. 

What's good for Walmart is good for the US.

I would actually argue that if you are looking at a company like Walmart that is suffering economically these days, because so many of the Walmart shoppers are getting too poor to shop at Walmart, what you are talking about is shifting up to maybe $150 billion a year from the sort of families that don’t shop at Walmart to the sort of families that do shop at Walmart. Walmart raises their prices by 1 percent, roughly one time, and they get a huge amount of extra business.

I'm hoping that means their employees will be able to afford to shop there as well, even if they can't afford a model T.

Good on you as well, Ron Unz. I'm looking forward to the day when I'll be able to happily "pull the lever" for a pol with an R after his name. You give me hope.

Happy Year of the Horse everyone! 

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: The New Liberal Menace in America



-------------------------
Wolves in Sheep's Clothing:
Back to the Future:

"One of the more complex phenomena of the modern American political scene is that while the ideological divide between presidential candidates seems to be ever diminishing, the partisan mudslinging and animosity between the two parties is increasingly hateful. It's a weird paradox. But it's not uncommon to hear critics of the two-party system decry a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee just as the highest rated television news programs are driven by raucous debate between right and left.

For Daily Show host John Stewart, it isn't a paradox at all. There is no disconnect between the professional politicians and the activists that drive those debates. In fact, it's exactly the way they want it. Because a polarized public, focused on hot-button issues like abortion, tax cuts and school prayer, keeps their focus off the fact that the two parties have essentially become the servants of one very important class of voters, the corporations."


There's more of this excerpt at the book's website: here
-------------------------

A very interesting article, indeed... While I don't agree that partisanship is a bad thing, I do think the viciousness between the parties (including between the major parties and their respective minor party cousins) is counterproductive. We are a nation full of diverse ideas, and it is from that diversity that all good things will come. We need to listen more, and judge less quickly.

Most interested in reading the book from which it comes. Adding it to the list.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Clift: A Third-Party Ticket in 2008? - Newsweek Capitol Letter - MSNBC.com

Clift: A Third-Party Ticket in 2008?

I'm pretty certain the major parties would never allow this unity ticket thing to ever get off the ground, let alone actually work. This is stepping all too far onto what they see as their exclusive turf. The D's & R's establish the rules, & by doing so, have given themselves a built in self-preservation clause. (I'm still not sure why we allow these two parties to set debate and ballot access rules. You would think that in the first case, at least, news organizations would have more say...) The major parties will do anything to prevent their ever being cast aside as irrelevant... ...no matter how many Americans come to believe they are.

The dominance of the two major parties on our political system does need to be broken. In a more perfect world, this might be a way to do it, eventually, but I could never help a candidate I didn't support, and it's highly unlikely I could support a Republican. (I'm not even so sure about Democrats, most of the time... 8>)

I'm glad this idea is out there... I think that it might help all of us get a better crop of candidates across the board, one day. I just don't know whether or how it'll ever break through the major party barrier...