I was going to write a nice long post on the Republican response to the stimulus packaged, but I’ll let Rachel handle it:
Seriously? Tax cuts? How does that help people who are out of work and therefor have no money and therefor pay no taxes. And if we’re worried about inflation due to government conjuring money into existance, how is this any different than what banks do whenever they give someone a loan? (In case you weren’t aware, banks are only required to have $1 for every $9 they loan out, which means that when you get a loan, the bank is creating money out of the ether for you. If everyone paid off their debts, the American economy would shrink down to 1/9th it’s current size.)
Who knows if the stimulus package will work or not, but at least lets get some decent roads and bridges out of it. If the stimulus package fails at least we’ll have something to show for our money instead of the smoking craters in Iraq and Afghanistan that are all president Bush has to show for the trillion dollars we spent on those wars.
Now that the Democrats are in power, I really want to back the Republicans. Please Republicans, give me something, anything, to defend you with. Give me a decent alternative to the democrats plan! Give me a reason to support you.
Well, the election is over in a resounding victory for the democrats. It’s time for me to put on my red hat and try and think of ways to get the Republican party back on its feet. We need the Republican party to balance out the democrats or all that power will go to their heads and we’ll be in just as much trouble as we were for the first six years of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the current Republican leadership is not helping matters. After eight years of tax-cuts that didn’t help the economy at all, the best alternative to the democrats’ giant stimulus package they can come up is… wait for it… MORE TAX CUTS!
Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell recently came very close to seeing the problem before completely missing the point. He warned recently that the Republican party was in danger of becoming a regional, minority party. Given that the latest data shows a whopping 5 states are still solidly or strongly leaning Republican, that would be a resounding “no-duh.” Unfortunately McConnell proceeded to blame the Republicans’ lack of appeal to the rich, the poor, Latinos, and all other minorities as poor marketing. Poor marketing. Really? Republican ideas are sound, you just need to market it better?
Instead of a new marketing strategy, the Republicans need to spend some time, a good long time, and answer these questions: What does the Republican party stand for? Why do they exist? For whom do they exist? The current answers to those questions make any amount of marketing a moot point.
If you were to ask people on the street what the Republican party stands for you would probably get a wide range of issues but the predominant answers would be pro-business, small and limited government, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage. This is kind of a scary thought, and it’s no wonder they have been losing in this environment.
When people think about business right now, they’re thinking about Enron and Worldcom, Bear Stearns and Lieman Brothers. Companies who screwed over their customers, employees, and stockholders. Now is not a good time to be pro-business and anti-regulation. Yet the Republicans have not turned from their love of deregulation or offered a plan for non-intrusive yet effective regulations. Human greed makes it impossible for businesses or government to be unregulated. The founding fathers new that, that’s why we have a multi-branch government with plenty of checks and balances.
When people think small government, they have begun to associate it with incompetent government. The Republican president’s response to Hurricane Katrina for instance. They have also associated the Republicans with hypocrisy on this note since their president created a whole new Orwellian-sounding department, Homeland Security, and spent billions of dollars on a war. Small Government does not exist, and the Republican idea of small government simply means that the government isn’t going to help it’s people, it’s just going to increase the size of the military while our bridges fall down. All the actual small-government believers have jumped ship to the libertarians.
It’s sad that the third and forth answers are both anti-answers. What do you stand for? “Well, I’m against this…” This is a problem. Being against something should never overshadow what you’re actually for.
So how do we fix this? Some would say that the Republicans need to move to the left in order to appeal to a larger swath of the population. I don’t think so. We need them on the right to balance out the left, not rushing over to capsize our democracy. What we need is some things that the Republicans can stand for.
First of all, the Party of Lincoln® should stand for equality. They’ve let the democrats walk all over them on this issue long enough by trying to appeal to the “average white person.” That has led them to be associated with racists. The nearly universally white Republican National Convention last year should be a huge wake-up call that America is diverse and we need to assure equal rights for everyone.
Second, the Party of Reagan should be for pragmatic solutions to problems. Let the democrats have pie-in-the-sky plans for America, the Republicans should be the party of simple, elegant and above all competent solutions. They should be the first to speak up when something isn’t working and suggest viable alternatives. Right now the Republicans have no viable solutions and are severely lacking in authority on most of these issues due to the last eight years of gross government incompetence.
Lastly, the Republicans need a goal. They need a plan for where they want to see the country in 5, 10, 50, and 100 years from now. What is the Republican utopia? There isn’t one. The Republican view was that America was pretty good as it was and they were fighting with every ounce of their being to stave off change to the American way of life. Change came anyway. The democrats have a goal, set out in several of Obama’s speaches, of an America where everyone is equal and has opportunities available to them if they’re willing to work at it. That’s a pretty good goal. What do the Republicans have to match that? Do they have a better goal or vision for America?
If the Republicans cannot answer these core questions of identity, they are going to go the way of the Whigs and Bull Moose, and some new party will rise to prominence. The Libertarians seem poised. With a few sane voices, most likely defecting from the Republicans, they could easily rise to replace the Republicans as the new voice of the right. If the Republicans cannot find answers to these questions, or refuse to face them, I will have a hard time not saying “Good Ridance.”
There’s been a lot of speculation on how and why the Republicans lost the election. It could be as simple as the Democrats having a vastly better candidate, which certainly seems to be the case, however that does not explain the vast degree to which they lost. The Republicans went from having control of the presidency, the supreme court, and both houses of congress to losing all of them (given the age of some of the supreme court justices, it’s only a matter of time.) The speculation continues on what caused this but for my hypothosis I’d say it was the love. Republicans lost the love.
There’s a bit of poetry in the book of Corinthians that says:
“If I speak in the tongues of men and angels,
but have not love,
I have become resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”
The Republicans have been talking a good game, they haven’t changed their verbiage since Reagan. But Reagan at least, as my friend put it so eloquently, “Believed in the inherent goodness of the American People.” While many people have issues with Reagan’s policies, he honestly believed that Americans were good people and he believed that what he was doing was the right thing to do to help the country and the individuals living in it. He loved Americans.
Since then, the love has been replaced by a quiet (and sometimes noisy) cynicism. The Republicans lost when Bush failed in his response to Hurricane Katrina. The Republicans lost when they stop-lossed our troups. The Republicans lost when images of Walter Reed hospital were released. The Republicans lost when they, as a party, stopped caring about average Americans. Their idea was give enough to the rich and the wealth would eventually trickle down to the poor. Though they gave eloquent speaches, they’re words became like clanging cymbals.
Now the Republicans are lost in the wasteland pointing fingers at each other and trying to figure out what went wrong. We will wait and see whether they find the answers they are looking for, but unless they find the love, their reason for existing as an organization, it will be very difficult for them to return to power. And really, we need the balance or the Republicans will go the way of Bull-Moose and the Whigs to be replaced by another party that finds something beautiful and worth fighting for in this wonderful experiment we call America.
Yielding to pressure from conspiracy theorists, President-elect Barack Obama exposed his genitals to reporters yesterday at a press conference held to quash persistent rumors that he is, in fact, female. Previous assurances from Michelle Obama that he was “All man” had gone unheeded. While most in attendance agreed that the president-elect does indeed have a penis, the conspiracy theorists that had brought the charges were not convinced. “It’s obviously a prosthetic!” said conspiracy theorist and Fox News commentator Harold Crumm. Another theorist, Roger Johnson was likewise not convinced. “I was watching this on C-SPAN and all I saw was a blurry spot. This does nothing to convince me.”
Given the negative reaction by conspiracy theorists, an Obama spokesperson said today that the president-elect had canceled plans to show reporters his Birth Certificate, hospital records, social security card, and other documentation that the conspiracy theorists claimed would easily show him to be a natural born US citizen. Said the spokesperson, “We’ve been putting up with these baseless accusations for months. Most we’ve chalked up to crazy people, but President-elect Obama took strong offence to this new attack on his manhood. We were also going to take on the issue of his natural born US Citizenship, but if the word of public officials who legally have access to these documents isn’t good enough for them, there’s really no point in pursuing this further. As yesterday’s press conference proved, they’ll just say it’s a fake and continue to make wild accusations.”
I sat down with one conspiracy theorist this afternoon. “That’s not true at all. It would be very easy to dispel all these rumors. He just needs to show us his birth certificate and social security card and we would believe it,” said the man identified as Barack Obama Jr. after paying for our coffee with his credit card. “Why would he hesitate to show us this documentation? He obviously has something to hide!”
The Obama spokesperson responded, “After yesterday, I’d say no. No he doesn’t.”
I read an interview on CNN yesterday where they were talking to what they had decided was the “Republican Barack Obama,” and was struck by something he said.He said that the Democratic party wanted to give a man a fish, while the Republican party was the party that wanted to teach a man to fish.An obvious reference to the adage: “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.”(Trout starvation notwithstanding, I’ve always preferred the parody adage: “Give a man a fire he’ll be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.”)While I don’t doubt that the Republicans favor individuality and self-reliance, I have to admit that the analogy brought two similar thoughts to mind:
1) A man stands on the beach, starving.He hasn’t eaten in days.A Republican happens by and tells the man, “I have this fish I could give you, but instead I’m going to give you some instruction that will be more helpful to you.In order to fish, put a hook on your fishing pole, put a worm on the hook, and lower it into the water.When the fish bites, pull sharply to set the hook and then slowly reel it in.”The Republican walks away feeling very satisfied that good has been done here.The starving man looks at the frozen ground devoid of worms and notes his lack of a hook or fishing pole.He glares at the retreating Republican because he already knew how to fish; he merely lacks the means to do so.
2) A fisherman pulls into shore after a long night of fruitless fishing.Despite his many years as a fisherman, he has not managed to catch any fish.He comes ashore pondering how he will be able to feed his family since the fish have simply not been biting. A Republican happens by and tells the man, “I have this fish I could give you, but instead I’m going to give you some instruction that will be more helpful to you.In order to fish, put a hook on your fishing pole, put a worm on the hook, and lower it into the water.When the fish bites, pull sharply to set the hook and then slowly reel it in.”The Republican walks away feeling very satisfied that good has been done here.The hungry fisherman glares after the retreating Republican because, while he has much more experience and skill at fishing than the advice-giver, he has simply been having a string of bad luck.The Republican’s advice was of no help whatsoever.
A democrat gives each man a fish.The starving man on the beach eats for a day and needs a fish again tomorrow.The unlucky fisherman eats for a day and is able to catch a few fish the next day to feed his family.He limps by.
A libertarian believes it is each man’s right to starve and does nothing to help.
A communist takes all the fish that were caught in the area and gives each person a fish.The rest they keep “for emergencies,” but the fish rot.
A fascist gives fishing rights only to corporations and declares that if you want to be a fisherman, you have to work for the corporation.
Follow up 1) One day a survivalist happens by the starving man, teaches him to make fish-hooks out of twigs and use vines as fishing line.The man is able to work his way up little by little till he can afford an actual fishing rod and hook and make a meager living as a fisherman, being able to eat most of the time unless the fish aren’t biting.
Follow up 2) One day a scientist develops a fish-sonar.The unlucky fisherman takes a chance and buys one. He’s better able to find fish, and his fortune improves.The sonar quickly pays for itself and the fisherman is better able to provide for his family.
Conclusion: The moral of this story is that if you give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, you can teach a man to fish and he may still starve, but if you give him the MEANS to fish, he’ll have a much better chance of survival.
The question is, “how can the government possibly know what means people need?”They really can’t.So they’re stuck giving either useless advice to “Be self-sufficient!” or hand outs.While handouts do nothing to help in the long term, they may help some limp by until the fish are biting again.It’s better than nothing, but does absolutely nothing to help those without the means of self-reliance to gain self-sufficiency.They will be eternally stuck begging for hand-outs.A handout to a man who has the means but has run into a string of bad luck may get them through their tough time, but they will be eternally at the mercy of the whims of fate.Ultimately, it would be nice if we could see beyond the immediate need to give a person what they truly need to thrive, but that is not likely to ever come from the government. So if our options are to tell people to be self-reliant without aiding them in attaining self-reliance or just give them hand-outs and make them reliant on the government, which is the better option?
In a good economy, there are greater possibilities. The fisherman could get a loan to buy the fish-sonar. The starving man may be able to get a job, even if it’s minimum wage. It is easier to say to people “Be self-sufficient” because there are means available for those willing to work at it to be self-sufficient. When the economy goes in the tank, there is an overall loss of opportunity and maybe that loan or that job just isn’t available. Telling people to be self-sufficient in that environment just does not work. (See election, 2008.) The question now becomes, “In this era of less do we click back to the opposite extreme of government hand-outs or do we go to the center and work to meet people’s needs by giving them the means to be self-reliant?”
Thank God! The election is over and our new president elect is Barack Obama! Finally! An articulate, intelligent, thoughtful, president who will, if his campaign promises and his understanding of history are anything to go by, listen to both sides of the issues. Score one for hope! If his campaign is anything to go by, he will run a disiplined white-house. Booya!
Of couse President-elect Obama would not have been able to come to this point without a huge assist from the Republicans. Their general incompetance, pettiness, and hypocracy were invaluable in making this happen. Frankly, they have lost what they stand for. Quite simply, the Republicans did not give any clear idea where they would take the country if elected. They ran on their opponent being scary. Even if you’re successful in scaring the voters away from said opponent, it doesn’t really make them more inclined to vote for your party. But really it was down to their utter, utter hypocracy and the shallow hollows that their principles had become.
The Republican party is the party of self-reliance, so they let people fend for themselves and went about helping big businesses increase their profits. They’re the “fiscally responsible” party yet approved billions for two wars and gave no-bid contracts to thier cronies. They were the party of high morals, yet are under indictment for corruption.
Hopefully with the new president we will have a government run by competence. The democrats have two years. Two years to show that they can run the country as if it’s the United States and not just the red or blue states. Two years to show they can get stuff done that is in the best interst of the majority of Americans and not just friends and cronies. If they let their power go to thier heads, midterm elections will not be kind to them. History will not be kind to them. On the plus side, if that does happen we’ll be back to my optimal state of government: Democratic president, Republican congress.
Also on the plus side, I can go back to being a centrist. I like being on the fence, not taking either side. This election I picked a side. I think I picked the right side. We shall see. I am quite happy I will no longer be called on the defend my choice against the fear, uncertainty, and doubt thown around by the Right in this election. Hopefully in the next few years the Republican’s time in the desert will do them good and they will return to the principles that brought them to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln and inspired the nation like Ronald Reagan. I will say what the Right needs now is a new leader, like a Lincoln or Reagan. The Left has found a new JFK, a new FDR. The Republicans need to figure out where they want to take the country and convince those of us on the fence that this plan is the best plan for moving this country forward. Time marches forward. Any policies based only on keeping what we have will ultimately lead to our losing those things. We need to keep moving forward. And we need to pray for our new president and be willing to do our part to make this country, and this world a better place.
With all the Presidential debate drinking games out there, it looks like it’s spilled over into other areas. Like this one: Every time President Bush gives an address about the state of the economy, the stock market goes in the drink.
My initial gut reaction to the debate tonight was that John McCain won. He got in more snappy comebacks and sound-bytes. After the debate was over, I must say that despite this gut feeling, I liked Obama’s performance better. Obama came off as gracious, knowledgeable, and likable. McCain came off as mean, gruff, and not entirely honest. (If the number of times Obama objected to McCain’s statements as “just not true” were any indication.)
This afternoon, in a discussion at work, I said that regardless of what happens, both sides will declare victory. That is certainly the case. (Although the McCain campaign apparently jumped the gun and declared victory this morning before McCain had even confirmed there was going to BE a debate.) Hopefully a few people learned some things and maybe even a few people changed their minds. We can hope.
A coworker who I have a running political debate with (I’m nothing if not an argumentative bastard) sent me the following email. In my response I actually had to do some research so I figured I would post the fruits of my labors here and let it do double duty.
The following was pointed out last night while Colmes Interviewed Dick Morris.
Statement - McCain voted the same way as bush 90% of the time
Reality:
Most were budget votes where there are two sets of numbers and you are voting one way or the other.
Look at the 9 most critical issues, and you will see that McCain and Bush differed:
torture
the surge
campaign finance
tobacco
banning golden parachutes
assuring worker pensions in mergers
global warming
energy
judicial confirmation
9 of the most crucial issues, and McCain and Bush disagreed.
The 10% where McCain broke with Bush listed above (I see no mention of the two main ones, the economy and the war) I’ll address here:
torture - Surprising that after being tortured McCain would be opposed to it. *eye roll* I’m actually more shocked that the Republicans are admitting that the Republican Bush administration WAS IN FAVOR OF TORTURE!!! So even if McCain opposed torture, it was the Republicans who were in favor of it! Not a terribly strong argument to make when you’re running to keep your party in the white-house and your party is, or recently has been, in favor of torture.
the Surge - first this: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/01/pfotenhauer-bush-surge/
Bush didn’t oppose the surge. Secondly, the surge did work but that’s like saying you decided to build your castle on a swamp even when everyone says it’s daft to build a castle on a swamp, but you build it all the same! Just to show ‘em! And it sinks into the swamp. So you build it again! And it sinks into the swamp. You build it again and that burns down, falls over and sinks into the swamp. But then you send a bunch of extra workers out and they manage to build you a castle that stays up. Just because it succeeded eventually doesn’t make the whole idea of the war (Which McCain has wholeheartedly supported since even before it started. I can find the video clips to prove it if you press me) not foolish.
campaign finance - “I wouldn’t have signed it if I was really unhappy with it,” Bush told reporters, according to the Washington Post. “I think it improves the system.”
Tobacco - What? Who cares? Was bush in favor of tobacco or against it? This is hardly an election level difference. Seriously, this is supposed to be the 9 most critical issues of this election? Or just the 9 most critical things McCain has disagreed with the president on? Cause either way, this is kind of sad.
banning golden parachutes - Cool! Another thing I actually agree with John McCain on! I couldn’t actually find any information on this one except in lists of Republican talking points on how McCain differs from Bush but I’m all for it. The fact that this is something that McCain had to break with his party on is, as in my above paragraph on torture, kind of sad and doesn’t really improve my opinion of Republicans much.
assuring worker pensions in mergers - Another one I’m all for, but couldn’t find any actual information on. Not even a list of Republican Talking points. Also, Bush was against people keeping their pensions in mergers? Seriously, WTF?
global warming - All well and good, but he chose as his running mate someone who denies that global warming is man-made (something I’m actually not 100% convinced on either to be honest, but still.) These days, even President Bush believes in Global warming. Or at least Global Climate Change, because Bush can never seem to agree to call anything what it is. (IE, time table = general time horizon.)
energy - It’s fairly obvious that Bush and Cheney are in the pocket of the oil companies. That McCain is not is refreshing, certainly. But then he chose Governor Palin for the ticket who is. (See that whole pipe-line-is-god’s-will thing or just her quote “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices.” Agree somewhat with the last bit, certainly not the first part though.) As part of my “Try to find good things about John McCain project from a month ago, I said that McCain’s energy policy is much more robust than the Obama campaign is claiming (Drill, Drill, Drill) however it was hard to tell from watching the RNC and all the “Drill now!” signs in attendance and no real mention of any other forms of energy.
judicial confirmation - Uh… what? Which judges was he opposed to?
Quote from McCain: “Let me just look you in the eye, I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”
And now those two I mentioned earlier:
the economy - McCain’s senior economic advisor and co-author of McCain’s economic policy (now technically former advisor, but still handing out free advice and considered by many in the media to be a shoe in for treasury secretary should John McCain become president) Phil Graham was instrumental in deregulating the energy industry, allowing speculation on oil prices that have lead to our current gas price mess and also aiding the likes of Enron and their gaming of the California energy market (rolling brow-outs, remember them?) He was also instrumental in furthering deregulation of the mortgage industry and we all see how well that worked. Still, the fundamentals are strong, right guys?
the war - McCain has been a proponent of the Iraq war since before it started and while his “100 years” comments were taken out of context, the fact is that even after the Bush administration and the Iraqis are starting to talk time-tables for withdrawal, McCain is still in favor of us staying there and spending 10 billion dollars a month. (Oh hey! There’s something else they disagree on!)
Really though, all of this is of secondary concern. Hell, I’m on record saying that I wish Obama would get off this McCain = Bush line of attack. I watched both the Democratic and the Republican conventions. I heard a lot from both camps on why we shouldn’t vote for either candidate (Bob Barr is looking better and better…) However, what I was listening for really wasn’t the partisan bickering over which candidate was better than the other one, who had more experience or the right kind of experiences, it was the question of where the candidates would take this country if elected. And I like where Obama wants to take the country. Sure, he may not make it to the land of world peace, great economy, blue skies, clean water, and a sun-flower in every driveway, but at least he is trying to take us in a positive direction. I hope you all have gotten a chance to listen to McCain’s acceptance speech at the RNC. Listening to it and all the other speeches at that event, I never got a clear view of where exactly the Republicans were going to take us, I can only guess that we’re already there. After all, the Republicans have been in control of our government for 7 out of the last 8 years and the last year or so that the democrats have had “Control” of the Senate, the Democrats had 50 votes, the Republicans had 49, and Joe Lieberman (McCains BFF) and Dick Cheney were the tie breakers. (No wonder they can’t get anything done.)
It’s odd that the Republicans seem to be running against themselves so much. Is McCain’s best selling point really that he’s a maverick and went against his own party lots? What does that say about said party and why, even if their candidate is a maverick, would we want to reward them with another 4 years in power?
I had started writing a post for today, perhaps I will finish it up soon and post it. It didn’t really go as I planned. Truth be told, I’m a little depressed at the state of the world right now. While most networks would call this election way, way, way too early to call I think it’s fairly obvious that the election is going to John McCain and that thought has me rather depressed. I have a long history of backing the loser. I backed John McCain against Bush in 2000. I then backed Bush, who won overall but lost my state. I voted for Kerry (God help me) in 2004, who won my state but lost the election. Perhaps it’s just my environment. My family, with the exception of my wonderful wife, are all lifelong Republicans. Several of them were leaning Obama this election but the nomination of Governor Palin has made them reconsider. Many of the people I work with are also staunch Republicans, Republicans who will flat out admit that they’re wrong on a host of issues but will still doggedly support the Republican candidate. I said last week in a conversation that Palin was designed to appeal to the Republican base, the people who voted Bush into office twice and hadn’t learned their lesson. America it seems is like someone in a string of abusive relationships, maybe this one won’t beat me up, take me for granted, or cheat on me. 80% of the country believes that we’re on the wrong track, that our Government has not helped us. Yet despite this, a slight majority of the country is going to annoit the same political party back into the white house? We never learn. It was almost surreal watching the RNC last week. The Republicans seemed to flat out refuse to admit that they have been in office for the last 8 years. Oh, the Democrats have had a majority in the house and the senate for the last 2 years, but with Lieberman jumping ship, the Senate is basically a 50-50 split with Cheney as tiebreaker. The Republicans call this the do-nothing Congress. So by their own admission, Congress hasn’t done anything. Leading, if you follow my reasoning, to the inescapable conclusion that the mess this country is in must be the fault of the people in charge for the last 8 years who actually did anything.
The Republicans are of course refusing to admit that the country is in any real trouble, and again blaming anyone and everyone other than themselves for it. The victimhood that began in the Clinton years where Republicans were complaining about the liberal bias in the media, and that the liberal elites were attacking them, have extended now to an art form. Despite Rupert Murdoch (R-Media) owning a large chunk of the news stations (FOX!), newspapers (WSJ), and other media outlets the Republicans complain of media bias and thereby make it so that any criticism of their policies, even their outright lies, are swept under the rug. The Orwellian mantras of the novel 1984 seem to come to life more every day.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
And might I add another, “Weakness is Strength.” And all the sheep come together to bleat “Four legs good! Two legs bad!” in unison. Cause if you vote Democratic the farmer, er the Terrorists rather, will come back. Cause after all, Fear is Bravery too. If we don’t throw away the freedoms our soldiers fought and died to gain for us and support the Patriot act, warantless wiretapping, and the suspension of Habeus Corpus then the Terrorists will be enboldened. They might kill you and all you hold dear! And if you hold your freedom dear, well we can find a replacement for that or at least take your mind off it. Look! Our new VP candidate has boobies!!
