Update III (12/10): Welcome to my blog, foul-mouthed discussion board groupies! Anonymity has its perks, doesn’t it? You can say whatever you want while hiding behind a screen name. I don’t have that luxury. I’m out here in the open expounding upon and defending my views. You should try it sometime.
Update IV (12/11): To the discussion board groupie who tried to comment on my blog, check the comment I left on the board. You implied that I was a hypocrite for responding “anonymously,” but you obviously failed to notice the initials “LB” after said comment. I chose “Anonymous” because I didn’t want to go through the trouble of registering. I assume everyone’s IQ on the board is at least 80, so I figured you’d conclude “LB” was me, La Shawn Barber. If not, sorry for overestimating your intelligence.
————————————————————————
Have you voted today (Click on the image)? Only five days left! Be sure to tell your family and friends with computers about the 2004 Weblog Awards, whether they read blogs or not. Ask them to vote for ME and the blogs I endorsed. I selected some pretty cool sites.
I haven’t had time to research the recently-passed intelligence bill, and I won’t have time today, so here are your assignments:
1) Do some research and use this comment thread to educate me about the bill. For instance, does it include immigration enforcement language, or did the Republicans cave? Does it siphon off decision-making power from the Pentagon? What’s an “intelligence czar” and what will he do?
2) Essay question – President Bush is not conservative enough for me, and many of you know exactly why I say that. Is he too conservative for you, conservative enough or lacking in that area?
If these topics bore you, visit the Open Thread below and comment on any topic you like (within reason, of course.)
Update: Bush’s letter (in PDF) to the intelligence bill conferees. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
Update II: Remember my op-ed, “When Worlds Collide on the Moral Divide?” I just received a call from the commentary editor at the Washington Times. He’s running it on this page on Sunday. It’s been awhile since I’ve placed an op-ed in a newspaper. It’s this blog and you people I’ve been neglecting my other writing for. 
That will change soon, though. Stay tuned…
I forgot to add this: Guy Cannon at Damascus Road is off Blog*Spot!
{ 36 comments }
I have mixed feelings about the intelligence czar. In many ways, his “mission” or “taskings” are no different than what was directed of the FBI and CIA directors years ago and I really don’t see where he will have any more pull in making the agencies “collaborate” with each other (which was also directed over five years ago). Director/Department of Homeland Security is another knee-jerk reaction. These same missions (the majority) were already under the FBI (terrorism within the US borders and US properties…i.e. Khobar Towers Kenyan Embassies, were a responsibility of the FBI). If someone was NOT doing their job, creating more positions does not fix that problem. Unless the agencies “clean house” (like what it is rumored Porter Goss is doing, we will now have yet another “oxygen thief” and staff in the way of getting any real work done.
There’s a joke within the government and contractor community….
It takes an act of congress to fire a lazy government worker.
La Shawn,
Why have you been campaiging so hard for these Weblog awards? What does winning one of these “awards” get you anyway? I’m just curious. I was listening to Hugh Hewitt the other night, and he didn’t even submit his name for nomination this year. I thought that was quite interesting given his status as one of the blogosphere’s most influential members.
President Bush isn’t conservative enough for me. When he came to office in 2000 he was basically a big spending Republican who was socially conservative. About the only fiscal decision I’ve agreed with him on is his tax cuts. The prescription medicare add-on is a debacle of epic proportions in terms of fiscal responsiblity.
However, he’s far better than either Gore or Kerry would have been. And I understand that a big chunk of spending has been on Homeland Security, which is justified.
Maybe she’s just competitive Tom, and the blogosphere is watching the race.
Tim,
I couldn’t agree more, and I was beginning to think not many conservatives cared. I’ve been screaming that the prescription drug benefit is one of the WORST fiscal decisions in modern history!!! This policy does nothing to encourage clean or healthy living, and does everything possible to encourage people to seek prescription drugs for every imaginable ailment. I think this was W’s way of pandering to the AARP with absolutely NO regard for how it affected anyone else. OK, my face is starting to get red. So I’ll stop now and get back to work.
I have to agree, President Bush is not conservative enough for me either. I have met the man personally, back when he was Gov of Texas, and he is a wonderful, Christian man. Unfortunately, I think he has had to compromise on too many things: govt spending, deficits, the Medicare prescription mess, etc. I don’t even want to get into immigration reform/borders issues, as I don’t think he really wants to fix those. Maybe I’m wrong, but initial signs don’t look good. However, he is far more conservative socially than fiscally, which is good. I think that will be so important in the coming years, as we can see looming battles over the “infanticide” ban, possibly a federal definition of marriage, and appointing life-time judges.
I would be interested to know La Shawn, which side of the coin you feel is more important: to be conservative socially (on such issues as abortion, marriage, etc) or fiscally (deficits, spending, but also on things like immigration – I guess defining this side as things that may not have such a black/white moral definition). I have a guess as to what you’ll say, but my take on it is this: as a conservative Christian mother, I believe it is always imperative that I vote for those candidates whose views correspond with Scripture on social issues. Not that I can just blatantly ignore fiscal responsibilities, but that these issues trump fiscal ones in an era of basically only two viable candidates having a realistic chance of becoming elected. And many apologies if you’ve addressed this before…only been reading a few weeks and I haven’t quite made it through all your archives yet.
Merry Christmas!!!
President Bush is no where near conservative enough for me. But, then again, I don’t think that anybody is as conservative as me.
I will tell you this though: It was so nice to be able to have my youngest, when he pointed to the TV and asked who that was, to be able to say with PRIDE – “That is our President.”
All in all – a good, decent and honest Christian man.
Bush is about as much as I could hope for in a President. A Christian with a knack for politics, he gives Christians national representation. But his “compassionate conservatism” has yet to produce the kind of systemic results this country needs. No child left behind is a decent accountability test, but why not apply this type of accountability standard to international diplomatic efforts? Giving $20M to the Palestinians while they search for the billions siphoned off by Arafat seems to add lighter fluid to a a campfire. http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041208/2004-12-08T174740Z_01_N08849_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-BUSH-DC.html
I did! Good luck, you’ve earned it.
As far as the intelligence bill is concerned, from what I read by the few dissenting Republicans, it does nothing about the immigration/border situation. In fact, I read that this bill is more lenient with respect to the issuances of driver’s licenses. So, needless to say, I think this bill is disappointing, to say the least.
I like the President, and consecutively voted for him, but I do have my disagreements with the man. I think he has been in Washington too long and the liberal indoctrination is getting to him. Back when he was the Governer of The Lone Star State, he was much more conservative. But, recently he has been a huge disappointment with respect to immigration. That is probably my biggest disagreement with the man. Additionally, I also feel that he is back tracking a little bit with respect to the marriage amendment. So, I don’t know what we are going to do. It’s almost as if his conservatism is running low. I think he needs to refuel. Too much liberalism and not enough conservatism is bad for the soul!
La Shawn,
I voted for you. But, uh, shouldn’t our praise be offered freely by others, rather than solicited?
I appreciate everyone’s vote.
Tim – I didn’t ask for praise; I asked for votes!
I try not to solicit praise, but I have no problem asking people to vote for me if they think I’m the best among the finalists.
La Shawn,
I can say my vote for you is much more earned than my vote for Kerry. At least when you say you’re conservative I believe you. I was always second-guessing what came out of Kerry’s mouth. And, for that matter…I second guess everything that comes out of our President’s mouth!! But that’s another topic.
Good luck with the awards and best wishes.
1) It does include immigration enforcement language. It just doesn’t include language on the drivers licences.
2) Remember my scale the other day?
I rate Bush at the -2 part of the scale. That means a little to the left of center. I am a +1 myself. I cannot understand those that call Bush an extremist conservative. First of all I don’t believe conservatism is extreme. Anarchy and libertarianism is extreme. Libertarians want a cut in government by about 80%. If we did that there would be a depression because economically we couldn’t handle that many people being out of work in such short period of time. It may be wise to in the next 100 years shrink the size of government gradually by 80% but not overnight or in the next 4 years.
I consider myself at the +1 side because I believe government spending should be frozen in total dollars for the next 10 years while we reprioritize what government spends on. The federal government is tasked with protecting this country and a few other things.
93% of education money is spent by the states. That 7% spent by the federal government (started in 1979 with the Department of Education) should be eliminated. And for what reason was President Bush the first president to spend money on STEM CELL RESEARCH? Where is that prescribed by the constitution? Private companies have been doing that and can continue doing that. Private companies have found uses for umbilical cord stem cells. Why? Because they are trying to supply the cure for the demand out there for a cure for whatever ailments can be cured. Capitalism (the people choosing who gets what resources) is the vehicle for stem cells to provide the supply for the demand. Not government spending money on whatever government program.
I ramble.
Border enforcement is key to national security. It is the most important thing that the federal government is tasked with doing. I cannot understand why Bush is not stronger on the national security/border enforcement of our country.
To me there is no way to rate that issue on the scale of bigger government/lesser government scale. It is a common sense issue that the contitution prescribes that are federal governmetn is tasked with doing.
Thanks, Mike. While I’m glad I have many conservative readers and comments, I’m impressed with non-conservatives who become regular readers. I guess their reasons for doing so are simple, but ever since I started blogging, it’s always fascinated me. Why do you read and comment on a conservative blog? I’m really curious.
La Shawn,
I already know how I feel. Now, I need to know how the enemy feels!!!!!!! Hahaha.
Seriously, though…I try not to involve myself in partisan dividing lines. I’m extremely capable of thinking on my own terms, and that means not abiding to strict definition of what “conservative” and “liberal” really are. I truly believe that on certain topics a person can be a little of both.
I just like reading what non-like minded individuals are thinking. It strengthens my debating skills.
I’d like to now how Mike M. rates himself and President Bush on a scale of -10 being big government to +10 less government.
And does Mike M. think that this country’s government has grown in the last 60 years (by pure dollar numbers it has EVERY year)?
And does Mike M. think that was progress or some of it was excess or should there be even more government growth?
Bush, is Liberal Muckadoo.
Better than a Socialist liar I guess, but not by much.
The bill is a sham. It does not address the top problem pointed out in the 911 Comission Report. The hijackers had 60 bogus but valid drivers licenses. For more details contack Larry Elder at KABC in LA. The bill is terrible. That *ALL* the MSM said it was great should have been your first clue.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Baklava, I am fairly sure the only border security that was past, and that was not part of the House ‘Border Security and Terrorist Travel’ provisions, was 2000 more border security guards over a period of time. I am fairly sure none of the House provisions were past.
More border guards was a PC solution I believe, not a real solution. Dealing with illegals ability to merge into our society with legally issued license identification, no-doc jobs, and difficulty in deporting the very few that are detected, was the problem.
I agree Jim.
La Shawn,
As one of the more socially liberal on the blog, I think your blog offers a spectrum of conservatisim not found often other places. There are those who are to the FAR Right socially, those in the middle, and those who see things clearly (THAT’s a joke, people).
I guess your blog is so interesting because you EXPLAIN WHY you feel a certain way, rather than have your point of view distilled in 20 second bites. Me personally, I like to hear both sides (left and the right), distill politics (you have tended to stray far afield from the party line, thus you have credibility), and make my decision from there.
I guess its an occupational hazzard, but I’m a ‘my side-your side-the truth’ kind of guy.
For example, you have not Blogged about the ‘Declaration of Independance’ guy in Ca. yet, which I like because it seems you are waiting to see what the story is. I appreciate that.
Amanda and Stephen – I’m socially and fiscally conservative, and I think being socially conservative is more important, if I had to choose. Amanda, my view is based on the same reasons you mention. One candidate’s position is bound to correspond more with biblical teachings than the other. The problem is that different people call themselves Christians but believe different, sometimes contrary things about the Bible.
And you’re also correct about morality. I think requiring citizens to support illegal aliens, particularly when there are laws against illegal immigration, is immoral. Fiscally, it is irresponsible.
I guess your blog is so interesting because you EXPLAIN WHY you feel a certain way…
I try, Stephen. Thanks for noticing.
Congrats on the Op-Ed.
Would that we could see more of your articles in news papers.
Congrats on the Op-Ed La Shawn. This time I can show it to my Mom since she reads the Washington Times and won’t go online
La Shawn, over at Andrew Sullivan’s blog, he has devised the “Malkin Award”. Head over there and take a look. Let us know what you think.
Hi,
I am not certain if Bush is too conservative or not conservative enough for me. In some ways he is pragmatic, or at least trying to be, in others he is hard headed. Perhaps I am most frustrated in trying to read between the lines, to decipher from him what he is meaning because he certainly is not spending effort on eloquence. I think he is on the right side of history: he is pushing to imnpose democracy and civil society. He is on the right side of economic justice: he is setting out to reform Social Security, perhaps just in time before it blows us all up. He is on the right side of American society: He is a man of faith but not a fanatic, inspite of what the BDS sufferers confabulate.
On the intel reform, I have been very disappointed, but I have jsut realized something: If our borders were such a big hole, we would have already been hit. As to the ID card, I think any ID can be forged. Even military service records can be forged (heheheh). The point is, should we fight so hard for border and ID reform when we are fighting to restructure the command-and-control of intel? The President thinks not, I will go along with him on that. I think he will go after ID and borders soon enough. I hope.
Regards,
Ed
Dear La Shawn,
I think President Bush is, at heart, both fiscally and socially conservative. But he makes a serious attempt at reaching out to the opposition, at “compromise,” and he seems to seek and expect principled responsiveness from many who simply do not possess sufficient principle (Ted Kennedy and the education bill come to mind).
That said, he all-too-often ticks me off — and I am a solid “W” supporter. “Compassionate Conservatism?” I wanted to shake him like a rag doll for that one: “Conservatism IS compassionate, you dolt! Take two equally-sincere and caring people willing to ‘get involved,’ one liberal and one conservative, and point them toward someone who needs help: The conservative will step in with personal assistance, whether a meal, a port in the storm, a bit of cash, employment or job-finding tips, whatever he/she can do; the liberal will draft a petition and collect signatures to start a new govenment welfare program.
And health care? Good Lord, why do so many intelligent people, including President Bush, apparently believe insurance companies are “health care providers?” Insurance is not the solution to medical costs, it’s a big part of the problem! Ditto, prescription drug cards. What is the predictable impact on the (for uninsured) price of medical treatment or prescription drugs, when insurance giants force doctors, hospitals, clinics and pharmacists to honor unrealistic price ceilings for their insured?
Duh! If the person who can’t afford (or doesn’t want) insurance needs medical help, he or she has to subsidize the insurance companies’ profit margins by making up for the negotiated price ceilings’ shortfalls.
The medical savings plan idea, on the other hand, may improve that landscape and provide a path away from the Socialized Medicine cliff we were heading over the edge of.
Taking an overview of the Bush record, this President seems to be a master of subtle incrementalism: Every time he appears to be veering hard left, a conservative goal post suddenly jumps up in front of him.
I think in a lively chess game (or poker), this Prez could teach most of us a bit of humility.
Don’t know enough about the intelligence bill yet, though I understand about 75 R’s voted against it. As for Bush, he’s at best a moderate. He can barely even consider himself a social conservative. And fiscally he’s a borderline lefty. Honestly, I can’t figure out why the left hates him so much.
Hi!
This contest is at the very least a good way to visit other blogs that one would have probably never visited.
I did notice that you did not endorse anyone in the South American section (well, there is a lot of sections you did not endorse which is an honest recognition that you only endorse where you usually thread and know what is going on).
Now check my section. If it is mostly conservative blogs, mine sounds conservative although I am not one. But see, in Venezuela we are fighting the good fight where real democrats no matter what affiliation we have should recognize their values.
Here we have a tropical wanna-be autocrat advised expertly by Castro using race and other time tested manipulation to stir hate and get on top. With Trans Africa and Danny Glover among other celebrities coming to endorse all the Human Right violations committed “in the name of the people”.
I have no problem convincing conservatives, when they care enough about what goes on outside of the US and Iraq. Many liberals on the other hand have trouble to understand that what is basically at stake is simple democracy. Mind you,many do understand, and support heartily what I fight for as a time when the government is starting its road to muzzle freedom of speech by already banning some forms of news in day time media.
I am not talking lefty nuts here that know nothing, I am talking of you average liberal that should know better but to support Chavez under any form at this point in time.
But I am starting to ramble. I just wanted you to know that sometimes conservatives and liberals are not too far apart when basic freedom is the matter. So please go to my section and learn about us. Who knows, you might even vote!
Overlord: “Honestly, I can’t figure out why the left hates him (Bush) so much.”
He’s an outspoken Christian pushing values they don’t have.
Congrats La Shawn on getting your commentary published.
The new intel bill does nothing about borders, creates a new layer of bureaucracy, but does preserve the military chain of command. The latter was the major sticking point in the conferenct and it is due entirely to the effort of Rep Duncan Hunter that nothing in the bill may be “construed” to disrupt that chain of command.
Sensenbrenner was a holdout for immigration language, but I suspect president Bush’s announcement a day after the bill was agreed to in conference about pushing for immigration & border reform at the start of the next congress was the result of a deal for the Senator to pull his opposition.
Bush has the right values, but he is still a big government conservative. Conservatives will do well to realize that the days of small government are over never to return. The battles of the future will revolve around what aspects of people’s lives big government should govern.
Please check “Update IV” for my response to this inane comment. – Admin
LaShawn,
I did see your cowardly “LB” signature at the end of your post. It confirms my opinion of you, and since your currency is opinion, not fact or journalism, I’m sure you can understand that my perception of you has not changed.
You’re a new jack, and although you seem to know better but promote ideas that are irrelevant, but I respect your hustle. You’ve seen a way to get a little light by pandering to what you perceive as the powers that be. That you see me as a groupie is simply HYSTERICAL, and actually dishonest, but if it works for you to hide behind a label, then that’s your choice. I chose to disagree with you, and I think for myself. That’s as far as it goes. I have a right to disagree with you, and you know this.
New jack??? Whatever you say.
I’m allowing the above comment from “Cho Chin-Midori” so that everyone can see the level of thinking and pseudo-clever ad hominem coming from discussion boards. Someone on the board in question posted a link to my blog, and this person decided to pay me a visit and tell me off. For the record, I frequently sign my name “LB” on my own blog.
He/she implies that I’m a journalist, which I am not, and that my views aren’t based on facts. Rather than demonstrating what’s non-factual, he/she prefers to come onto my blog with the same old tripe I read about myself everyday. Nothing original, fresh or creative. To this person, I’m a panderer with a hustle. That’s an opinion. Fine. But he/she (I suspect this is a woman) fails to offer a “for example” or otherwise provide a basis for his/her opinion. But this is what happens when you’re running a high profile blog and promoting unpopular and politically incorrect opinions. I long for the day when my critics actually demonstrate why I’m wrong, and more importantly, why they’re right.
More important that all of that, I wish I had the power to prevent my URL from being posted on profanity-laced discussion boards in the first place.
Comments on this entry are closed.