E!!

Gallup is reporting the lowest Congressional job approval rating since Gallup started polling 34 years ago.  This dismally low number reminds me of…hm…Something…oh Yes!  It’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently saying the following in re: to comments about a possible presidential veto by Senator Mitch McConnel (quoted from Mark Hemingway’s June 30 column @ National Review Online):

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “A veto by the President? Gee whiz, who would be afraid of him? He has a 29-percent approval rating. How in the world could anybody be afraid of him vetoing a bill?  I cannot imagine why anyone would care about that. . . .  I say to my friend and I say I don’t know how many people are up here for reelection, but I am watching a few of them pretty closely, I say to all these people who are up for reelection:  If you think you can go home and say, I voted no because this weak President, the weakest political standing since they have done polling, I voted because I was afraid to override his veto — come on.”

So, Senator Reid… If a 29% presidential approval rating renders W. “weak,” what does a 14% approval rating render you and your feeble Congressional pals?

From the website Americans for Tax Reform: 

Cost of Government Day (COGD) is the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government on the federal, state and local levels.

Cost of Government Day for 2008 is July 16.  Working people must toil on average 197 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government.  In other words, the cost of government consumes 53.9 percent of national income.

How about some suggestions for how we can all celebrate the Day we stop feeding our income to the Insatiable Monster that is Government?  Talk sarcastically amongst yourselves and report back.

Lately I’ve been reading a lot of commentary suggesting that Conservatives need to get angry about the frightening Leftward socio-political swing our country is in danger of taking no matter who wins the election this fall – and to do/say something about it.  For a little taste of what this might look like, click below for my recent column/rant in Liberty Watch Magazine:

 http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume04/issue04/trueconservative.php

I’m now on vacation through the 13th.
Please stop back in a couple of weeks and we’ll see what’s cooking then.

Happy 4th of July!
 

I think we must stick with the traditional ingredients of cold-filtered Conservatism and persuade people - through the intelligent and passionate presentation of facts and ideas - that it is well worth preserving.

PragmaticallyPolitical writes in re: to the election quandary:

It’s not a sacrifice of values to recognize that Barr (or any other 3rd party candidate) won’t win.  However, if you want to make a political statement, DON’T DO IT IN A SWING STATE!  Libertarians for Barr are far less detrimental in Illinois or Utah than in Ohio or Nevada.

In re: to my comments and questions about voting Independent/Libertarian vs. Republican this fall, reader Nicky Cheese made these comments:

I’ve never bought into that “spoiler” rhetoric. More choices are better than less, no? 

Individuals ought to vote for the candidate they believe best represents them. A vote is a reflection of one’s values. Utilize the full range of potential choices in order to affirm what is closest to your values.

Movements are long-term.

More choices are better than less.  But is it really a “choice” when we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting what we chose?  If a vote for Barr or Paul still gets us McCain or Obama, as we all know it does, what good was our principled selection?

And is the spoiler argument really just rhetoric?  In the Bush/Gore contest, Gore lost Florida (and the whole enchilada) because of the votes that went to Nader.  No doubt the Naderites were “voting their values.”  But what about the prudence of picking what’s better when you can’t have what’s Best?  I’d sure like to ask those Nader voters what they’d choose if they had a Do-Over. 

The argument that gives me greater pause – i.e. that I think is more compelling – is that of long-term vs. short-term thinking.  As we consider the coming decades, what will best stop our slide to the Left and the disturbing hyper-expansion of the State? 

Do we stand on principle and vote ultra-conservative or libertarian every two years, win or lose, with the hope of steering the GOP to the right and/or bolstering what might someday become a viable Third Party?  And if we don’t, what will compel anyone to consider our cause?

Please chime in and pass along this post so we can hear from more folks.  I’ll post the best remarks up front to spark further discussion!

See Nevada State Senator Bob Beers’ blog post entitled Per Capita Measures of Nevada for an interesting examination of our supposed violent crime and homicide rates. 

Because we are a huge tourist destination, Beers asked the Legistlative Counsel Bureau to develop a statistical measure of tourists v. residents – which they did, here.  The upshot is that when you figure in all the “visitor days” (how many tourists are here for how many days vs. the resident population) you find that 21.5% of human activity on any given day in Nevada can be attributed to tourists while 78.5% can be attributed to residents.

Beers goes on to do some math re: our per capita crime rates and suggests we might be a less aberrant population than the rankings say.  Also, Greg McFarlane chimed in on a Comment and said that a few years ago Mother’s Against Drunk Driving was up in arms about our drunk driving rate – which did not factor in all the drunk tourists.