Wednesday, November 29, 2006

A good look at a …………………

……………….. new approach for Republicans was recently provided by Polk County Republican Supervisor Bob Brownell. Bob recently disguised himself as a homeless man and spent some time in area homeless shelters.

Bob Brownell has long been an advocate of the Republican philosophy of social policy. Unlike the repulsive characterization we suffer at the hands of the Democrats and their liberal media wing, Republicans have a very clear social agenda to solve the problems of poverty and social failure in America.

Unlike our liberal opponents, we don’t measure success in solving social problems by the amount of money spent or the extent of government involvement. Rather, Republicans view success in real terms, like increasing home ownership, including and especially among minorities, to record levels, for example. The difference really is that simple.

But we need to engage in the debate. We cannot allow the Democrats to continue to define issues of poverty. An educated public wouldn’t view the Democrats as the default solution in areas of urban poverty and education if we chose to fight on those issues. How could they? Forty years after the Great Society promised that insertion of the government into every orifice of the body politic would create a secular socialist utopia it has, instead, destroyed the black family, imprisoned generations of Americans to the subsistence of utter dependency (modern slavery) and reduced our public schools to little more than expensive child care in far too many cities. Remember, we have liberal school board members right here in Des Moines who think literacy should be optional for high school graduation.

So, two thumbs up to Bob! Let’s take a page from the Brownell play book and start educating the public about the many solutions that less government can bring.

Oh, and let’s not delay that educational process until after the Democrats define us as heartless and cruel-its time to put an end to that petard.


RF said...

Good post, except the tired old attack lines on D's that discourage civil discussion.

When it comes to poverty, I feel D's have one important thing right. Most D's make it clear poverty is a priority issue for them. Where D's could learn from R's is in the area of methods. Too many of us D's are stuck in often ineffective 40-year old programs, unwilling to re-evaluate them and look at other options/methods. If we could combine the D's willingness to make poverty a real priority and R's more creative and possibly more effective methods, maybe we could actually achieve something. Definitely an area where true bipartisan discourse could benefit us all.

Anonymous said...

........... and putting issues of poverty in perspective.

Poverty in America isn't very deep and effects a small percentage of the population.

Its a problem to be solved, not a crises, to quote the Real Sporer himself.

the chad said...

Makes me wonder if the drunk guy I saw last weekend (and it was FREEZING) begging for money with soaked pants from pissing his pants was, in fact, Ako or another elected official!

I bet Bob stood out! He wouldn't exactly pass for a derelict in my eyes unless he threw out some eubonics or something.

the chad said...

I wonder if the politicians will start making a habit of immitating the destitute. Could panhandling be a new way for the state to get revenue?

Democrats could probably pass as homeless easier than Republican candidates. They tend to look more haggardly.

Anonymous said...

rf-sporer's rhetoric is pale in comparison to the vivid and very personal attacks that you guys pour on us everyday.

Anonymous said...

You are correc that Brownell would have stood out as a homeless person. Brownell is HOT!

Way to go Bob!

Anonymous said...

The reason that Democrats view poverty as priority is because they know if they really solve poverty, they lose a pool (albeit small) of victim voters.

Democrats have no intention of having people lose victim status. They encourage people to view themselves as victims. So, they may have it as a priority, but it depends on how you define priority.

AJ said...

Hey Ted,

I want to point out one falacy in the minium wage philosophy of the Democrats.

Minium Wage increases on a state level are ok because the goods and services, whose costs are increased can be spread to other states who do not increase their minium wages. That is why when they pull stats that say the economy in states with higher min wages are better than that of lower wages. Now that the Dems are in control and are planning on a National Wage increase their is no other states that we can spread these costs to since every state would have the same higher wage. With other counties we lose out because they have lower wages higher wages usually mean more effiency and reduction of lower paying jobs but s slight increase in higher paying jobs. It would be ok for Iowa to raise its wage as long as we could keep other states from raising theirs, because we could spread the cost of our higher wage onto them.

Ultimatly it is in noone's interest to raise the min wage because it does nothing but inflate the economy. IE Carterism!

Anonymous said...

It's very funny to me that the democrats don't understand that by raising the minimum wage they actually end up hurting the very unions they intend to serve.

Most, if not all, union contracts are tied to minimum wage. It's a back door bait and switch - lets help the poor people - yet, it's really all about paying back the union thugs.

So, as the smart person at 9:51 pointed out, it hurts us in manufacturing the most with jobs going overseas etc.

It was the union thugs that caused all the manufacturing to go to Mexico and everywhere else in the first place. Now, by going after a national minimum wage increase, more jobs will go to Mexico, not less. They will have fewer union thugs rather than more

How's your Ford and GM stock doing these days?

Now that I think of it, this could be a bait and switch idea for us! Vote for an increase in minimum wage and reduce the number of Democrats overall!

the Kevorka said...

rf-you are one of the few remainging well intentioned Democrats.

Democrats cannot embrace new solutions because the entire ideological premise of your party is the denial of individual accountability and autonomy (unless it comes to something sexual). Any real solutions to the problems of poverty and social decline require both more autonomy and more accountability.

Remember, any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take from you everything you have!

RF said...

Anon 8:10 - Reading R blogs leads me to believe your side is very good in the category of "vivid and very personal attacks" as well, even against your own. But you are definitely right, my side does it too. After 8 years of Clinton and 6 years of Bush, I think there is a great yearning for more civilized discourse in this country. Some politician is going to tap into that goldmine. Right now it is looking like Obama may be the one to do it.

The Kevorka - Thank you for your compliment. However, I do think most of my fellow D's are well intentioned. Just like I believe most R's all well intentioned. I think most D's truly want to help the less fortunate. I also believe most R's don't hate the poor. I just wish R's made standing up for the little guy a higher priority, and I wish D's would be willing to think outside the box and not just throw money at old ineffective programs. You are definitely right, fighting poverty requires much more personal accountability than most D's are willing to advocate for. We should be helping people who are willing to help themselves. The government alone can't lift people up.

mohammed was a pedophile said...

I also believe most R's don't hate the poor. I just wish R's made standing up for the little guy a higher priority,

It isn't the job of the government to stand up for the little guy. The fact is that BOTH parties have grown government so much that the working man is the one that gets nickel and dimed to death.

If the government would get the hell out of the way, then the little guy would have a better chance of success.

Republicans don't want you to succeed because then you may just think that economic thrift is a virtue and vote them out of office for spending too much.

The RATS love it when you succeed because then you become a target. You become one of the evil, rapacious rich people that they despise so much.

Kenboiraq said...

Mohammed is right that both parties have grown government and can't seem to get their hands out of the cookie jar. Of course the Dems go completely nutz in this area and Republicans are the world better but I can't believe we can't find some even better Republicans to cut government expenditures. I would start with 90% of our welfare to unnaccountable individuals, 100% for corporate, and 95% of foreign aid.

Anonymous said...

Teddy Roosevelt was the man we need today. So, Who in the state of Iowa has the most capacitiy to bring the Roosevelt philosophy to life?

Anonymous said...

I suggets we start cutting expenditures, by cutting kenboirag's military pension, his VA benefits etc. I also think that all the commuters from Waukee Clive etc, pay for I 235 improvements with tolls. Let the farmers pave their own damn roads to the grain elevators and lets stop farmer and corporate welfare. If ya want cuts you have to decide what you'll give up!

Kenboiraq said...

Ha, this is the funny part of cowardly anon of 2:23 doesn't realize we have worthy vets doing this job with no retirement on the way. I am innactive as I am a contractor and I will probably miss my Reserve retirement for as I only had 18 yrs when I switched over. Oh, and reserve retirements are far lower than active and begin at age 60. So much for his first argument as valid!

Additionally, like all other cowards he fails to know history or understand the motivations of those who serve. Until the 1950's our citizen soldiers only received pay when called for a war so there goes the argument we are a bunch of "Free Loaders."

However, that being said, I do agree those fighting for our country for the likes of the nameless coward in the above post do deserve every benefit we can give them. Our constitution established the role of government and paying for a military has always been there.

Paying welfare moms to pump out 6 kids by 5 different daddies is why our social budget eats up our treasury and those kids aren't raised in a healthy environment often leading to more social programs. Democratic households create unnaccountability and instability while Republicans create patriotism and service to an UNGREATFUL MICHAEL MOORE LOVING COUNTRY!

I DEFY ANON 2:23 to state his/her cowardly name the next time they come after those serving in Iraq while they defend liberal handouts. You make me sick!

Anonymous said...

The question Whiny was you talk a good game about cutting gov't until it comes to your pocket.I said cut your pension not the soldiers who actually served and defended. You are using arguements that weren't true during the Reagan years about welfare moms. Oh and in America, People of all religions can freely express their religions, even in airports. Read your constitution you sicken me to even call yourself a member of the Republican party, you are probably part of the Gay Old Pervert wing.
So GI Boirag What government handout will YOU give up to cut expenditure! Answer the question without listening to Rush. Have an orifinal thought

Kenboiraq said...

Rush Limbaugh is pretty hard to get in Iraq as the Armed Forces Network has lately been broadcasting NPR too much. I don't have any government handouts and perhaps you should read the truth about "the flying imans"

I promise you, I have plenty of "Orifinal" thoughts as you put it and how you got the "Gay Old Pervert" wing out of anything I've written I will never know but your party is the one seeking to legalize every relationship including old men and boys!

I will state plainly the Democratic party is divided with half only trying to get as much from the treasury as possible and the other half actively subverting the country in some weird version of socialism/communism.

I see you continue to remain anonymous while lobbing your leftist garbage you call "orifinal" thoughts. Can't you all just find some banana republic to take over? Ortega, Chavez, and Castro appreciate your support and Michael Moore is dying to be in charge of something big so grab Al Franken and get out of America. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

RF said...

"It isn't the job of the government to stand up for the little guy." - This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think that's the only job of the government, but I feel it should be one of them.

Kenboiraq said...


The job of the federal government is to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, regulate trade, and maintain courts.

Standing up for the little guy is much more in line with communism's false promises as those in charge when given such power always abuse it. But it sure sounds like a good idea right? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and communism is a great theory until millions starve for lack of food. Reality is governments of the people, by the people and for the people do well and the federal government has a only few key roles.

Who is the little guy anyway? If you fall for that line of thinking you quickly discover everybody is deserving some sort of government assistance. Dems love that as nobody can promise more than they do. The Dems view any expediture on national defense as money unspent on social programs regardless such programs only waste money and create further dependency.

Social Manchausen Syndrome Baby!

Kenboiraq said...

RF said...
"It isn't the job of the government to stand up for the little guy."

My response to that comes from the immortal words of Dr. Gonzo to Raul Duke.

"That's probably pretty good advice if you have Sh*t for brains."

RF said...


Being a regular reader of this blog, I have noticed you have a kind and constructive way of discussing issues. Are you using the same approach to win the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East, or is your kindness reserved only for us America-hating Democrats?

One can stand up for the little guy in many ways. It's not all about doling out money. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind. As a working person with a family, I'm grateful for the things he did.

"The job of the federal government is to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, regulate trade, and maintain courts." - If that's your strict and consistent criteria, you have an awful lot of budget cutting to do. We could start with the billions we pay to private consultants to rebuild foreign countries after invading them. Does not strike me as a core duty of our federal government.

Kenboiraq said...


If you think you are scaring me with that logic you obviously know nothing.

Fine cut my job and reduce our military to killing people and breaking things and you are singing my tune! Just cut all unnecessary taxes and let me keep more of my money when working in America and we'll add do just fine. Oh, and welfare - end all of it! If a woman can't support her child we should take the child and give that child to a family that can.

We could solve a lot of our problems if we just assign some personal responsibility.

Kenboiraq said...

But hey, rf is on to something here as Supreme Court Justice Breyer expounds upon the notion government stands up for the little guy. Too bad I am white, late 30's, divorced, non-union, military veteran, Republican and male - so I am the ENEMY of such liberal hogwash.

For more on Rf's theory of government for the litte guy take it from this Clinton appointee Justice.

WASHINGTON - Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."
Breyer, a Clinton appointee who has brokered many of the high court's 5-4 rulings, spoke in a televised interview that aired one day before justices hear a key case on race in schools. He said judges must consider the practical impact of a decision to ensure democratic participation.
"We're the boundary patrol," Breyer said, reiterating themes in his 2005 book that argue in favor of race preferences in university admissions because they would lead to diverse workplaces and leadership.
"It's a Constitution that protects a democratic system, basic liberties, a rule of law, a degree of equality, a division of powers, state, federal, so that no one gets too powerful," said Breyer, who often votes with a four-member liberal bloc of justices.

RF said...


I had certainly no intention to scare you or anyone else. When people bitch and moan about taxes and the need for a very limited role for government, I just value intellectual honesty and consistency.

Clearly, we have a difference of opinion when it comes to the issue of government standing up for the little guy. We can agree to disagree on that. However, when it comes to race issues, I’m more in line with Juan Williams and many on the conservative side of things. We should acknowledge the victories Dr. King and many other brave individuals achieved 40+ years ago, move on, and judge people based on their character rather than the color of their skin.

Kenboiraq said...

If we want true equality we need to stop making it a moving target. It seems only White people can be racist and have you ever seen what Government contracting is like regarding racial preferences? What about the University of Michigan's only real requirement for Law School admission which is being Black?

As far as gender related why is it fathers have no real role if separated from the mother as she will win 99% of the time regarding custody.

Dr. King was very brave and his arguments for equality would make no sense if changed to preference. Now we have Islamic radicals pulling the race card and African American politicans are sympathizing with them? We are self destructing as a society and the time for racial preference has certainly past.

Equality of Opportunity - YES, everyday and twice on Sunday. But Preferences, race baiting, and politically correct attacks on anyone not black are getting out of hand.

Kenboiraq said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kenboiraq said...

RF, if you are the person I suspect you to be I am thrilled and very encouraged you are debating these important issues. We need to come together as a country if we want a future. The world is becoming a very dangerous place.

RF said...


Thanks for your comments. I do think we desperately need to come together as a nation and find a way to discuss issues in a civilized and respectful manner. I feel change in the tone of our political discourse is more important than any specific political issue. On many issues, both R’s and D’s share the goal. Only the preferred methods for achieving the goal are different. We share much more in our values and thinking than we realize. Seldom is one side 100% correct and the other side 100% wrong. I find the D party echo chamber to be a very boring place. I seek the R side of thinking, to be able to understand how people on your side think and what the real reasoning behind your thinking is. Even when I disagree with you, it is good for me know where you folks are coming from. I believe I can do this without betraying my core values.

Stay safe.

Kenboiraq said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kenboiraq said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kenboiraq said...

Thanks for the support and we are all in this fight to save our country together.

As somebody in this fight for about five years I am keenly aware just how serious it is to our future.

Just a note: the debates we have in America and online don't exist in Iraq. The troops and my fellow contractors talk of football and world events. The only talk of Iraq is a desire to go in stronger but NOBODY talks about leaving or feels we are losing. We all complain about Iraqis (factions and overall situation) and different factions but most have a high regard for individual Iraqis we know.