Month: February 2006

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

mitt romney: conveniently pro-life?

those of you who have been reading this blog for a few months know that i have supported the idea of governor mitt romney running for president in ’08 from the beginning. i like the fact that he has reduced the size of government in massachusetts. his message also appeals to me. i think that a message that speaks to issues of concern to many americans, including education, health care, and the necessary reform of social services, is the right one for republicans to adopt. i’m glad romney is talking about these things, and i hope that the message will be copied by other republicans who want to be our next president.

i like romney. have i been clear enough about that? however, i think his conflicting views on abortion are going to end up being a stumbling block for him on the road to the republican nomination.

the following exchange took place between governor romney and chris wallace on fox news sunday.

WALLACE: You have come under fire for allegedly flip-flopping on the issue of abortion. You’ve faced questions about that, so let’s talk about that today. When you were running for governor of Massachusetts back in 2002, you said — and let’s put it up on the screen — “I believe women should have the right to make their own choice.”

But now that you’re considering a race for president, you say you’re a pro-life governor who wishes the laws of the nation could reflect that view. Governor, why the change?

ROMNEY: Well, we had a major issue in Massachusetts, and it surrounded stem cell research. I spent a lot of time talking with people scientific in background as well as religious and spent a lot of time understanding when it was that as a society we needed to respect human life and came to the conclusion that it’s time to be very clear on that, that when conception occurs that human life has begun.

I’m not talking about religious definitions, but scientific definitions — and that to respect human life, we have to do so from conception. And therefore, I indicated I am pro-life and will respect the rights of human life.

WALLACE: But I don’t understand, Governor. I mean, the stem cell question, which often deals with the question of harvesting of eggs or fetuses to be used for stem cell — that isn’t why most women get abortions. I mean, there’s a division there, isn’t there?

ROMNEY: Well, there is a division there, and I’m happy to talk about stem cell research.

WALLACE: Well, no, but I’m asking about abortion. I mean, the vast majority of women aren’t getting an abortion so that they can sell their fetus.

ROMNEY: No, this is about when respect for life begins and when we as a society — and I believe fundamentally in a society there has to be respect for human life.

And when I ran for governor, I said very clearly I do not support abortion, I do not favor abortion, but I will maintain a moratorium on any change in the laws of Massachusetts relating to abortion.

One of the big issues in our race was whether there was going to be a reduction in the age of parental involvement in abortion from 18 to 16. I said no, no change in abortion laws. But I didn’t call myself pro-life or pro-choice. But after…

WALLACE: But you did say, as I said in the quote, women should have the right to make their own choice. I guess the question I have is are you saying that you only came to the conclusion about when life begins — this has been an issue for 30 years, 40 years — in the last three years?

ROMNEY: Chris, what I’m saying is that my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before. And I said — and the time of the change came as we were involved in the discussion of stem cell research, and I said at that point I am pro-life.

I’ve never used either title, pro-life or pro-choice, in the past. I said I don’t favor abortion. I wouldn’t change the laws as governor because I believe each state should have the right to make their own choice. But I’m very firmly pro-life.

i don’t think romney had a very strong answer to chris wallace’s questions about abortion. there are some things in his record that he can’t gloss over by talking about his views on stem cell research. romney has the inconvenient problem of trying to survive politically in a hard-core democratic (some might even say a liberal) state. i guess i could see the necessity of occasional compromises, but an issue like abortion is something that a governor who wants to be president should have decided one way or the other. the theory that the next republican nominee will most likely be pro-life seems logical to me, and it makes sense that romney would want to position himself that way.

there’s some contradictory evidence that romney may not be “firmly pro-life” as he says. it’s hard to distance yourself from supporting the legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug. he also has made past statements, in which he says that he is personally opposed to abortion, but that he would not attempt to change the laws of massachusetts to reflect that belief. that might be a hard sell to many in the pro-life community.
romney’s position that the states should decide on whether abortion should be legal or not sounds reasonable to me, but i’m not sure it will satisfy his critics on this issue. it’s possible to change your mind on abortion. i just hope that romney’s “firmly pro-life” position is genuine, and not a position taken for political advantage. i would like to believe that it is genuine. we will see what other pro-lifers think closer to the ’08 election.

related:

Romney reaches out to party’s evangelical base–the state (SC)
Romney Touts Conservative Credentials in S.C.–chris cillizza’s politics blog (washingtonpost.com)

Posted on George W. Bush, Random Musings

the UAE port controversy

“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”

–senator john mccain, quoted here.

mccain’s making a ton of sense. i agree with this. i think we need to look at this port sale deal carefully and make sure we have fully vetted any company who wishes to be involved with our ports on any level. i’ll be honest. i have my doubts about the wisdom of allowing this deal to take place. on the other hand, i’m not sure if we really want to alienate a country who has provided some level of operational support to the united states in the war on terror. opponents and supporters of this sale have both made convincing arguments.

i don’t think that democrats who have spoken out against this port sale are doing so for the sole purpose of looking tough on security, although that may be a fringe benefit. i’m also not cynical enough to suggest that some of those democrats are protecting union interests by opposing the deal, as some conservatives have done. maybe they are, but i would like to believe that they have actually thought about this before taking a position on it. the most inane argument against it is the accusation that those who have concerns about this deal believe that all arabs are terrorists…that we are racists, in other words. that’s not the right sales pitch.

of course we don’t believe that all arabs are terrorists. we realize that we can’t paint them all with the same brush. that said, based on dubai’s past history, it is rational and natural to have legitimate concerns about any involvement they might have with our ports. it’s not racism. it’s common sense. i think mccain has the right idea. we need to examine all the evidence before we rush to judgment based on limited information.

i’m ok with dubai ports world leasing space in our ports, with these conditions:

  • there is a thorough and complete vetting process, including questions about their effectiveness in providing service in other countries
  • port workers should be screened carefully, and be subject to extensive background checks (this goes for all of them, not just those from any UAE-affliated company)
  • the coast guard will continue to control security at the ports
  • the local port authorities will still be in charge of owning and operating the ports

there may be other needed conditions to make this transaction work for both sides, but i think that we need to consider the deal. once we get all the information on this, i think the president could win this argument, but i have absolutely no confidence in his ability to sell any of his policies to us (or even to his own party).

related posts/articles:

The UAE purchase of American port facilities (FAQ)–council on foreign relations (CFR)
The Ports Deal Makes a Comeback–real clear politics blog
Security fears about infiltration by terrorists–washington times (bill gertz)
Ports of Politics–opinionjournal.com (WSJ editorial)
Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers–california conservative

9 Comments Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush, Republicans

the great communicator and the big spender

George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. Democrats accost him for being like Reagan while Republicans praise him for it. It is a fact that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across the board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. President Reagan successfully lightened the tax burden on the American people, and oversaw a massive defense spending build-up. Given President Bush’s recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting. However, at this stage in his presidency, Mr. Bush’s dismal record on spending when measured against Mr. Reagan’s nullifies this temptation. Better yet, in light of President Bush’s spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than Reagan.

Let’s look at the facts. If we compare the three-year percentage change in real spending during Reagan and Bush’s first terms, President Bush comes out as a profligate spender on his own and as compared to Reagan. Under President Bush, real total outlays are estimated to increase by 13.5 percent as opposed to 6.8 percent under Reagan. More importantly, total real discretionary outlays are set to increase by 19.5 percent under the Bush administration while they increased by only 2.8 percent under Reagan.

it’s a rather cruel cut to imply that dubya is similar to jimmy carter in anything that he does….there’s not much (if anything) jimmy carter did right as president. more numbers and artwork here (from the cato institute) to support this claim. bush 43 just can’t say no to new spending. it’s not just defense spending either, where significant increases in the amount allocated to that part of the budget are to be expected post 9-11. the numbers here represent president bush’s unwillingness to stop his own party from wasting our money. this is not to say that there is no economic benefit to tax cuts, because this can be easily proven. however, we can’t continue on this current spending spree. we must cut up the government credit cards, before our country suffers the economic decline of the majority of european countries.

reagan and bush have a few things in common, but their economic policies were vastly different, in theory and in practice. reagan used the veto on occasion, but bush doesn’t seem to believe in using his. bipartisanship doesn’t always produce good policy. neither does proposing legislation that ted kennedy will support.

we can blame the republicans and the democrats as well as our president. everyone should share the blame and the consequences of their reckless behavior on spending. i hope that the ’06 election will bring some accountability to the “leadership” in DC. big government has returned, and it must be destroyed before it causes further damage.

related:

(pdf)on spending, bush is no reagan — cato institute
Bush vs. the Deficit Hawks — opinionjournal.com
Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits–real clear politics

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats

hillary: the dems’ best hope for ’08?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a longtime Hillary Clinton fan. As in a back-when-she-was-still-wearing-headbands fan. I have found her warm and utterly charming in person; more than that, she understands the challenges facing Democrats in a way that few others in the party do, and her ability to absorb policy nuances rivals her husband’s. This country is long past due for a female president, and I would love to see Hillary Clinton in that trailblazing role (and not just because it would make Ann Coulter break out in giant hives). But—at the risk of getting myself permanently blackballed by her loyal and protective staff—while Clinton can win nearly any debate that is about issues, she cannot avoid becoming the issue in a national campaign. And when that happens, she will very likely lose.

–amy sullivan in the washington monthly

i am not a hillary fan. never have been. i don’t share ms. sullivan’s positive assessment of the junior senator from new york. i also can’t see the evidence that hillary totally understands where her party needs to be on the issues of the day, especially in the area of national security. nor does she appear willing to take on the popular left-wing fringe in her party and provide leadership. all i know is what i’ve seen of hillary, and i have to confess that i’m not too impressed with her politically.

while i would love to see a female president, i just don’t see an ideal candidate for that office right now…at least not a candidate who shares my ideological views. dick morris has floated the idea of a condi rice candidacy. she’s not running. that’s too bad, because it would be an interesting campaign to watch. could she beat hillary? i don’t know. my gut feeling is that she would certainly give hillary a much closer race than the previous attempts made by wanna-be challengers rick lazio and jeannine pirro. (hillary would have lost to guiliani…guaranteed.)

the democrats have a problem here. at present, they have no coherent leadership. there are several democrats attempting to fill this void: dean, kerry, gore, and senator clinton. they are well-known on the national stage, and vary a great deal in their level of credibility with the american people. whether this should be the case or not, hillary’s political ambitions can’t be divorced from her overall negative image. amy sullivan may be correct when she says that hillary can win issue-oriented debates, but at the end of the day, hillary can’t run from her past history. even her detractors recognize that she is a formidable opponent, but she sometimes makes bad political calculations and says silly things (like the plantation remark) which damage her credibility as a leader.

with all that said…i still think hillary’s the best candidate the democrats have right now. maybe in the next 2-3 years they will find a stronger representative for the democratic party. but in order to do that, they will have to first find a coherent message for that candidate and for their party. good luck making all those groups within the party happy. it will be a difficult task.

BTW…she’s no centrist.

related:

Is Hillary a centrist? Let’s look at her votes–newsday
Hillary in 2008?–amy sullivan
Many faces of Hillary — none a winner–jonah goldberg

Posted on Random Musings

monday’s good stuff to read

Ending the “Human Rights” Farce –NRO editorial on the United Nations and their Human Rights Commission (an oxymoronic group consisting of dictators with their own sordid history in this area lecturing the united states on how morally inferior we are)

Regardless of whether we participate in the new council, it’s time to create an alternative. The United States should lead efforts to found a new institution devoted to the protection of human rights, and involving eligibility requirements that would limit member states to genuine liberal democracies. Many multilateral organizations exist outside the U.N. structure — NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe come to mind — and they are effective precisely because, unlike the three rings at Turtle Bay, their member states are committed to common values. President Bush has already set a precedent for circumventing failed international bureaucracies: Faced with the ineffectiveness of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he created the Proliferation Security Initiative, which has been instrumental in, among other things, inducing Libya to give up its nuclear-weapons program.

many things could be changed to make the un live up to to a fraction of its utopian idealistic vision. read more here.

America Must Preserve Its Culture–california conservative

Europe’s abandonment of the Judeo-Christian foundations of its culture during the last century has left it devoid of any firewall against the enormous encroaching pressures of militant Islam. Certainly its insipid and fanciful premises of “social justice” and post-modernism are no match for Islamic zeal.

Now, the once-great continent is left scrambling to offer any believable reason why its institutions and culture should be immune to the prohibitions of the Islamists. And for the preservation of their future, Europeans have little more to hope for than the benevolence of an ideology that knows no such concept.

totally agree. while it is important to recognize where we came from and the characteristics that make us the unique people we are, those who are americans have committed themselves on some level to a common identity. this common identity which unites us has started to fade away with the new emphasis on multi-culturalism, and that’s a shame.

other interesting posts:

Europe’s Hidden Conservatives–weekly standard blog
Joe Wilson: pro-Iraq war once upon a time?–sister toldjah

that’s all. read now. 🙂

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush

the democrats’ lost mojo

President Bush was in trouble. Nothing was going right, and the war in Iraq was rapidly losing support. Democrats smelled victory but kept bungling the chance. Their nominee was so unappealing that Bush and the GOP scored a giant victory.

That’s a short history of the 2004 elections, when Bush won a second term and the GOP gained seats, and kept control, of both houses of Congress.

Fast forward and 2006 is shaping up like deja vu all over again.

Bush hasn’t seen 50% approval in the polls for months, Iraq is stuck in bloody neutral and congressional Republicans are under fire for ties to a corrupt lobbyist. With midterm elections in the fall, Dems should be able to take one or both houses and exert much more influence over the last two years of Bush’s term.

But Democrats are still getting in their own way, and could blow their chances again. The most prominent party leaders, including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, have become so extreme that their attacks make Bush look good by comparison.

–michael goodwin, “dems are blowin’ it” (ny daily news)

quick. get austin powers on the phone. mojo of a different sort is missing from the party in opposition. they can’t seem to get anything positive out of their attacks on president bush. they can’t seem to find a message that works for them and also is something that the average american can identify with/relate to. in addition, they can’t seem to figure out who is really in charge of their party. is it howard dean? is it left-wing blogs? hillary? john kerry? nancy pelosi? harry reid? the answer is that NOBODY knows. it’s interesting that even the democrats don’t see hillary as a leader or even representative of their party’s views right now. i do think that if the democrats found a unified message and if (this is a big if) it consisted of more than just opposing what bush does, then they would have a much better chance of success in november. i just don’t see this happening.

where are the men and women of vision for the democratic party? who will provide an optimistic view of this country’s possibilities and promise in addition to concrete solutions to problems we are facing as a nation? who will step up and push the democrats closer to the views of most of the rest of the country? i haven’t seen any of them who are willing to abandon the kook vote. none of the potential democratic candidates for president have shown leadership, and they also don’t have a message that’s easy to sell.

but the republicans can’t rely on democratic failure/implosion. we still need to tear down some walls in our own house, and remember what made us successful in the beginning. it’s not enough to be against bush. the opposition needs to present a vision for change, and right now they just don’t seem to have one.

jonah goldberg in the la times:

“Some Democrats are furious that their party doesn’t have its own ideas. Others say they do have ideas, they’re just keeping them secret for now. That sounds a lot like the high school geek who insists that his girlfriend is really hot but lives in an undisclosed location in Canada. “

exactly.

interesting weekend linkage (related and otherwise):

Posted on Random Musings

YAY! (non-political alias post)

some non-specific alias spoilers below…don’t read if you don’t want to know if you will ever see vaughn again. i will simply compliment JJ (abrams, also known for LOST) on this fabulous decision and move along. now if we could have an exact date on the return of alias to our TVs…

from tvguide.com’s ask ausiello column:

Question: Michael Vartan is supposedly signed to do four more episodes of Alias. Will it be as a ghost? — Brett

Ausiello: OK, major-ass prattle here: According to Pinkner, Vartan is actually returning for five, possibly six, episodes, beginning with the second one back this spring (that’s Episode 99, for those keeping track at home). And I’ll let Jeff address the second part of your question: “As we’ve said from the beginning, the rumors of Vaughn’s death were nothing more than rumors. In this world, don’t take anything at face value. We’ll know by the end of the 99th episode exactly where he is and if he’s alive or not.”

expect more political stuff in the near future. 🙂

Posted on Uncategorized

free speech vs. extremism

If the events of the past week don’t put an exclamation point on to what we are dealing with – the irrationality and hatred resulting from tools of fanatical Islamic propaganda – and force everyone to realize that the enemy we face is dangerous and only getting more daring, what will it take? How long before we can no longer say anything about the Practitioners of Peace without having them threaten to engage in their ancient ritual of removal of head from body?

Most dangerous is the willingness of those who are right to give in to the demands of the fanatics. Israel constantly gives in to the commands of the Palestinians as a result of their desire for a peace that the fanatics do not want. Countries apologize for their own free speech codes in their own country after the Crazed Ones take to the streets with torches. Late last year, France responded to mass rioting by Muslim youth by promising more welfare programs for them. Giving in to the enemy is more dangerous than fighting it and telling them enough is enough. Giving in to their demands only encourages them.

dustin hawkins, “At Least They Are Not Crazy” (posted at california conservative)

read more in this post at california conservative, which is, as always, right on the money. negotiating with extremists usually doesn’t produce the desired result. the right to dissent is an important one, but it has been abused by these protestors. we cannot reward this kind of behavior with concessions, and as soon as the europeans realize this, they will become more serious about how they treat such behavior. michelle malkin’s got more interesting artwork here.

Posted on Democracy

bad PR for the “religion of peace”

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

–Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq, from the article “Democracy in a Cartoon”
(ht: malkin)

this guy gets it right. more muslims need to speak out against the violence. this is why our support of the danish cartoonists is important. we cannot allow the debate to be controlled by extremists who use offensive cartoons as an excuse to riot and burn buildings. michelle malkin has more alarming pictures of the protests in this post.

burning buildings over offensive cartoons is not the best way to promote Islam. it’s not the best way to sell Islam as a religion of peace. in fact, i’m having a hard time believing that many muslims who believe the way that ibn warraq does actually exist. it’s possible that there are moderate muslims who are simply practicing their faith without any desire for any sort of jihad. but they need to speak up right now if they are tired of extremists controlling their party and controlling the debate.

related:

Danish Embassy Set Ablaze: Can We Co-Exist–jay at stop the aclu
“Can Democracy Co-Exist with Extremism?”–california conservative
On Freedom of Speech and Islam: News, Commentary and Blogs…–small wars journal