Month: February 2007

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

just.stop.it.

the mediots are at it again. they are taking on the monumental task of destroying mitt romney before he even gets a fair shot to make his case to the american people. the latest smear is a low blow even by MSM standards. they are now trying to associate governor romney with some relatives of his who just happened to be polygamists. he has only one wife himself, so why does this new information matter? he’s not a polygamist. if the media wants to destroy romney, there are more effective lines of attack than this. this attempt is quite pathetic and stupid.

there are many valid criticisms of romney and we all know what those are, but there’s no reason that he should be disqualified from being president just because he’s a Mormon. what are we so afraid of? that romney will mandate polygamy by executive order? i don’t buy into Mormonism, but mitt romney doesn’t look like a religious nut to me. i haven’t seen any proof that he would be one as president. there should be no religious litmus test. we should elect the best qualified candidate in the field, no matter what religion he or she happens to be. being a person of faith, or if we can be so bold as to say “someone who believes in God” might be helpful in a republican primary, but it doesn’t necessarily make you fit to be president. just ask any sane rational person who knows jimmy carter’s history.

when governor romney talks about “people of faith”, it sounds so new-age and abstract. i’m not sure this is the best way for him to deal with the questions about being a Mormon. i wish he would make this more about shared values between Christians and Mormons rather than trying to say that it doesn’t matter what kind of God you believe in. if you’re someone who believes in God just say so. tell us who you are. i don’t think that we really know who romney is and what he really believes. that’s a tall order for the campaign staff and for the candidate himself. conservatives in particular and republicans in general don’t know what to do with a candidate like romney. he doesn’t look or act like the kind of guy republicans usually elect. maybe that needs to change. we need to put some more thought into this process if we can’t find room for candidates like mitt romney.

i’m just wondering what the media sees in him that the rest of us are missing. he is running a distant 3rd or 4th (generally after newt, who hasn’t announced yet) in most polls. his name recognition is much lower than giuliani and mccain, and that also needs to go up dramatically for him to be a viable contender. the only press about him seems to be bad press, and there are never-ending questions about his evolving positions on social issues.

the media is being very helpful to mccain and guiliani in creating fake scandals to keep romney from gaining any momentum. they have more faith in his future status in this race than republicans do. why else would they coordinate this hit campaign against him? if this is the worst thing they can find in his past, governor romney will survive the media scrutiny just fine, and might even gain a few supporters in the process.

tags: ,

Posted on Iraq, Tony Blair, UK

not so fast

for those who would like to characterize tony blair’s withdrawal of british troops from basra as an admission that he was wrong about iraq, here’s an opposing point of view.

gerald baker:

The first point to note, is that, as the prime minister himself said in his statement to the House of Commons, the British troop presence in Iraq – unlike the US – has been on a steady downward trajectory since the initial phase of the war ended in May 2003. At one point total UK military personnel in the region numbered close to 40,000. By the end of 2004, the number stationed in the UK-command sector of Iraq – around Basra in the southeast of the country – was just over 9,000. Two years ago it was reduced to the current level of roughly 7,100. With yesterday’s announcement , the new total will be about 5,500.

This is, obviously, well below the 150,000-plus troops the US will have in Iraq once the new counter-insurgency strategy is fully under way but it is still a long way ahead of the next largest contingent of the coalition, Poland at around 2,000. It hardly represents a retreat or a surrender, still less an abandonment of the US.

more at real clear politics. the brits have been withdrawing troops without anyone noticing it for years now. this is nothing new, and it doesn’t represent a policy shift by the blair government. mr. baker goes on to argue that the basra mission was a different challenge than securing baghdad, and the british troops experienced some success in stablizing that area. that’s good news. there’s still more work to do, of course, but we should give credit to the brits for the work they have done in iraq.

he also mentions that the withdrawal frees up more manpower to continue the struggle against the taliban in afghanistan.  somehow afghanistan has become the forgotten battleground. iraq gets all the headlines, but there are still battles to be won in afghanistan.  we need to finish what we started there.

 

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

interesting strategy

john mccain must feel that he still has something to prove to social conservatives. despite his consistently pro-life voting record, he doesn’t believe that we are convinced enough to give him our support. why else would he openly call for the repeal of roe v. wade? while i’m not sure that his previous statements on abortion are as strong as what he is saying now, i don’t think that mccain’s record gives us any indication that this is a massive position shift for him.

of course, if abortion was the only concern that conservatives had with mccain, then he would be in a great position to get the republican nomination. however, he has a few more hurdles to jump before he can gain their support.

there is his opposition to a federal marriage amendment, which many social conservatives support. in addition to that,  it may be hard for the religious right to forgive mccain for his harsh statements about them during the 2000 campaign. some of them have long memories, and they haven’t forgotten how mccain treated them. even though the influence of the religious right has diminished somewhat over the years, it still exists, and it wouldn’t hurt to have them in your corner when running for president.

then there’s the main disagreement most conservatives have with him — mccain-feingold. this legislation is an imperfect solution to an unsolvable problem. we can’t improve the process of electing candidates by restricting debate.

mccain doesn’t need to prove anything on abortion, but on some of these other issues, he’s got some fences to mend. he’s the closest thing the republicans have so far to a viable conservative candidate for ’08, but i remain undecided on the field. anything can happen in a year.

tags: , , 

 

3 Comments Posted on Editorials, Iraq

questions and debate

we are still not having an honest debate about iraq. why is it that we cannot, even now, thoughtfully engage the arguments for and against bush’s troop surge without accusing one side or the other of trying to gain political advantage? being against the war is a popular position to take, so it is neither brave nor courageous to parrot the poll-driven opinion of others. democrats and those few republicans who have come out against this troop surge can both be accused of trying to gain political advantage by supporting their various non-binding resolutions, and there’s a strong case that could be made for that point of view. we need to get beyond these accusations and have the iraq debate based on a full understanding of the consequences of what we choose to do next in iraq.

democrats are trying their hardest to oppose the war in iraq without taking any steps to end our involvement there. they seem to believe that this is what the american people voted for.  the democrats are misinterpreting the message that was sent in November. the message was that we wanted a plan to win, and that we didn’t believe the current course was headed toward that goal. nowhere in all the votes cast did I see a mandate for de-funding the war. the american people weren’t close to suggesting that the democrats should oppose a troop surge that could be an important measure to stabilize Baghdad, as well as being another step toward the withdrawal of our troops from iraq.

in order to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops from iraq, several questions have to be asked. those who take this position have to realistically deal with the consequences of taking this action. if iraq degrades into more of a bloody mess than they believe it already is, what then? do we then send troops back into iraq, or do we leave iraq to fend for itself? if so, then it would make more sense to support the surge and to give it a fair chance to work before completely throwing the iraqis to the sectarian wolves.

some examples from history might suggest that we should give the surge a chance to work before completely abandoning the iraq project.

In 1973, a heavily Democratic Congress voted to prohibit U.S. air support for Cambodia’s pro-American army, then desperately fending off the communist Khmer Rouge insurgents. In early 1975, Congress cut off all U.S. military aid for Cambodia.

Predictably, Cambodian government forces were soon defeated by the Khmer Rouge, then backed by Communist China and North Vietnam.

What followed was one of the great horrors of the 20th century – the genocidal slaughter by the Khmer Rouge of 2 million Cambodians, roughly 40 percent of Cambodia’s population.

In 1974-75, an even more heavily Democratic Congress drastically cut U.S. military and economic assistance to our ally South Vietnam, even as the Soviet Union was illegally flooding North Vietnam with heavy weapons. The subsequent North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam overran our ally, took Saigon, and promptly imposed a Stalinist dictatorship that resulted in the deaths and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese.

it’s easy to understand why the democrats are where they are with this war. it has nothing to do with sympathy for terrorists. democrats aren’t evil. they just don’t see the point in supporting a mission that they believe has already been doomed to fail. that’s a legitimate position to take, and it has quite a bit of popular support in the drive-by media and in the public at large. at this point, the only fingers of blame being pointed are at our commander-in-chief, and to a lesser degree, hillary clinton. the democrats don’t want to take any responsibility for this war. they don’t want this war to be their problem, because after all, bush started it, right?

Continue reading →

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

some thoughts on the ’08 candidates

it’s understandable that social conservatives would have a few legitimate questions about mitt romney. we have all seen conflicting statements that he has made, and it is troubling to think that someone who wants to be president would change his mind on these very important issues purely for political advantage. that’s the indictment that has already been handed down for mr. romney, and many of us may have already convicted the guy.

knowing what I know about mitt romney, i still like him better than hillary, obama, or edwards. it goes back to what i said in a previous post trying to persuade conservatives to vote republican in the ’06 mid-terms — it’s better for us to have a party in power who agrees with us most of the time (which we had) than a democratic party who disagrees with our entire plate of issues.

social issues are important to conservatives, but there’s more to supporting republicans than abortion and gay marriage. there’s also fiscal concerns with taxes and reducing spending, as well as judicial nominations, gun rights, and the growing terrorist threat we face as a nation. even though we may disagree with a candidate’s views on social issues, we still take other factors into account when picking a nominee.

for me, it’s about finding a president (no matter what party he/she happens to be) who scares the hell out of rogue states, bad actors like kim jong il and ahmadinejad, and all other terrorists. i haven’t seen a democrat who gives me that impression. i’m still deciding about romney, giuliani, and mccain.

i would love to find a viable presidential candidate who has always agreed with social conservatives, but i don’t see any of those out there. my ideal candidate would also be a communicator-in-chief, someone who could sell his policies to the american people and rally their support. that’s the kind of president i would like to have, and that’s where i think president bush has really struggled at times. it would also be nice if this person believed in shrinking government and permanent tax cuts. oh yeah…and appointing supreme court judges like scalia and roberts.

why is it that giuliani gets a free pass on his views on gay rights, abortion, and gun control, but every single thing romney ever said or did is sliced up six ways from sunday? if we can forgive giuliani for all these things, we can certainly make allowances for romney.

i don’t know whether romney’s new positions are borne out of political calculation or whether he had a geniune change of heart on all these issues. but if social conservatives can’t accept romney, they also have to reject giuliani, who has been consistent in supporting both abortion and gay marriage.

social conservatives have never gotten everything they want, even with a republican president and a republican-controlled congress. at some point, we have to accept that reality and settle for getting someone who will go along with most of what we believe.

tags: , ,

3 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

looking for mr. right

it’s a difficult search in real life, but it’s even harder in politics. i don’t know how many more stories i will have to read about how conservatives are unhappy with all the current frontrunners for the republican presidential nomination. they know the kind of candidate they want, and they just don’t see that ONE TRUE CONSERVATIVE in the race right now who is capable of beating the democratic nominee (whoever that is). i admit to being disappointed in the current field, but maybe conservatives will just have to settle for romney, giuliani, or mccain. maybe there won’t be a late entrant on a white horse who will fulfill all requirements of the social and the fiscal conservatives this time. there’s nothing wrong with having high standards and never compromising those standards, but in the political world, we don’t always get everything we want in a candidate.

in supporting romney, giuliani, or mccain, we have to accept that they aren’t really reagan conservatives, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. it makes sense that they would want to embrace the social conservatives and the religious right, because those are still influential groups in the republican party. there is more to conservatism than “values issues”, although those issues are very important.

how should we define conservatism? in its hard-core form, i suppose that the definition would be a combination of the social (pro-life, pro-gun, opposition to gay marriage) and fiscal policies (low taxes, limited government, and significantly lower federal spending). it would also include a no-tolerance policy for terrorists, as well as an affinity for judges who have an originalist view of the U.S. constitution. (did i miss anything in this definition?)

i’m not sure that there are many conservatives out there like that who would be willing to run for public office. most of them are too smart to run and put themselves through that grinder, and i don’t blame them for that choice, but that’s why we are where we are.it would be hard to make the case that any of the current candidates will be exactly what we want, and on some issues, it will be difficult to overlook past history. that’s ok. take the bad with the good, and don’t give up on this field of candidates just yet.

i have a few ideas for my perfect presidential candidate (which i may or may not share in a future post), but i want to know what you think. if you could elect anybody as President of the United States, who would it be…and why?

tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats

the government owes you nothing

where in the world did we get the idea that being a citizen of the united states means that we are entitled to government benefits? it must have come from FDR, who was the founder of this modern welfare state. perhaps we can blame LBJ’s Great Society. at this point, it doesn’t matter who created this mess of entitlements. we must fix it before our country suffers the fate of old Europe. at some point, European governments will be unable to finance all of the entitlements they provide.

we don’t have a right to government-paid health care, retirement, or the total financing of our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. many Americans would disagree with me on this, but that’s probably because we have been conditioned to accept government largesse without considering what it costs to receive all of these government benefits. social security is a good example of this. I would like to bet that before social security was introduced, it never occurred to people that the government would finance their retirement.

we have programs in place like medicare, medicaid, and social security that take huge chunks of the federal budget every year, and costs continue to rise. yet no politician has the courage to take on the unpopular cause of reforming these programs or taking steps to reduce the costs of these entitlements. it needs to be done. it needs to be done soon.

with all that we know about the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of government programs and services (think DMV), how can we, in good conscience, propose that the government take on yet another wildly expensive entitlement program like universal health care? like many other liberal proposals, it is based on a feel-good philosophy. most Americans probably do believe that they have a right to health care and that it should be guaranteed to every American. it’s a feel-good position. most of us want to be seen as caring and compassionate and willing to help out our fellow citizens. that’s a wonderful platitude that means absolutely nothing concrete. the pollsters ask the wrong question. sure it would be great for everyone to have health care, but i’m not convinced that allowing the government to fund it is the best solution we can come up with to achieve that goal. it won’t reduce costs, and increased government regulation will add to the workload on medical professionals, taking away from time spent with patients.

services that are publicly funded generally don’t meet our expectations. the argument that there’s no opposition to public funding of education, and that health care shouldn’t be treated any differently is just silly. don’t we want better decisions to be made in health care than are being made in public education? are we satisfied with the results of our public education system? you don’t really need me to answer that, do you?

the important thing to remember here is that competition generally produces a better product. under some single-payer health care systems, such as Canada’s, private insurers are prohibited from offering duplicate services to the public system, and are only allowed to provide services that fill gaps in the national health coverage. there are still coverage gaps under this system. full coverage under any system is an unrealistic goal, but that’s what its proponents seem to be promising.

according to this report(pdf), in 2001, Canada spent 9.3% of its GDP(gross domestic product) on health care, which is higher than the average 8% spent by most industrialized countries. yet Canadians are still unhappy with the service they are receiving. some even are in favor of MORE PRIVATIZATION, not less. the report also concluded that the system had financing problems.

there is another legitimate concern with government-run health care, one that is rarely talked about. there have already been documented incidents in the Medicare system where unauthorized personnel have gotten access to patient records. for those who are concerned about privacy rights in other areas, like phone conversations, and fear that the government knows too much about your personal affairs, wouldn’t this concern you?

i have looked at the arguments pro and con for universal health coverage, and I am convinced that we can make reforms that would get us closer to full coverage without allowing total government control of health care. I am uncomfortable with government mandates on individuals and on businesses, even on such an important issue as health care, which is why I cannot support John Edwards’ health care plan. my intention is to cover edwards’ plan in more detail in a future post, so I won’t get into the details right now. (if you wish to look it over, here’s the link to the pdf.)

for more information on the subject, check out some of these links:
The Case for Universal Health Care (pdf)
The NHS: a dysfunctional insurer
universal health care – answers.com
single payer health care – answers.com

tags: , , ,

 

10 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

john edwards and the angry left

it’s becoming a trend for republicans and democrats alike: trying to win the favor of influential bloggers.  there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.  a successful outreach program could not only get your candidate positive press in the blogosphere, but it could also net your guy or gal some already plugged-in local activists willing to assist on the grassroots level. the danger in hiring bloggers, as john edwards has now discovered, is that bloggers have a virtual paper trail, and everything they had previously written is out there for the world to see. pandagon’s amanda marcotte wrote some pretty offensive stuff on her blog, and the responsibility for those posts rests with her, not john edwards.

candidates can only control those they employ. that said, before john edwards’s campaign staff hired ms. marcotte, i would have expected that they would have looked at her previous posts and fully vetted her work before she got the job. if they didn’t, it’s fair to accuse the edwards campaign (at the very least) of negligence. she was hired to represent the edwards campaign and put in charge of his campaign blog. surely they must have known that hiring someone who has written some controversial things in the past could be problematic for the campaign, even if the hire temporarily gained the favor of the angry left bloggers.

i am unconvinced that ms. marcotte would have written anything controversial as an official member of the edwards team. if she had written something controversial in that capacity,  then it would definitely be something that could damage edwards’ campaign. the edwards campaign, as far as i’m aware, hasn’t officially fired her yet. politically i think that it would be a smart move. 

however, they have a right to hire any blogger they want to hire, and if they are willing to deal with the fallout, why should it matter to us on the right? why are we giving edwards advice?  it’s almost like we are trying to save him from himself.  that’s really not our job.  let him make his own choices and deal with the consequences of those choices.  get out of his way and watch the show.

tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

another left turn

our pal dennis kucinich now has company in the dark horse category of democratic presidential candidates.  we know very little about kucinich except that he’s a socialist nut with a gorgeous wife, and he is also someone who favors immediate withdrawal of our troops from iraq. we know even less about fellow dark horse candidate former senator mike gravel. that’s why he faces even longer odds than kucinich (if that’s even possible). so why does this guy deserve a whole post?  i think that some of his ideas are interesting, and even though i disagree with some of those ideas, i think they are worth discussing. i’m also fascinated by his willingness to call out pretty much every democrat who voted for the iraq war right in front of them at the DNC winter meeting.

here’s part of what he said(any italics are mine):

History teaches us that nations fail when leaders fail their people. The decision to invade Iraq without provocation and fraudulently sold to the American people, by a President consumed with messianic purpose, sadly confirms this lesson of history.

The Democrats controlled the Senate on October 11, 2002 and provided political cover for George Bush to invade Iraq. The Senate leadership could have refused to even take up the resolution, or a few Senators who opposed it could have mounted a filibuster.

But the fear of opposing a popular warrior President on the eve of a mid-term election prevailed. Political calculations trumped morality, and the Middle East was set ablaze. The Democrats lost in the election anyway, but the American people lost even more. It was Politics as Usual.

Given the extreme importance of any decision to go to war, and I am anguished to say this, it’s my opinion that anyone who voted for the war on October 11––based on what President Bush represented––is not qualified to hold the office of President.

he’s partially right. the senate leadership could have done more to stop the iraq war from happening. they didn’t do so, because they also believed that saddam was a threat. they had every reason to think so. hillary even did her own research and came to the same conclusion her husband and president bush did — that regime change was necessary in iraq. political calculation wasn’t the motive for the democrats when they let the president invade iraq.  it is the motive for democrats calling for immediate withdrawal from iraq (like dennis kucinich and mike gravel for example). there is another contest going on with all these candidates…who will win the favor of the netroots? how else do you explain this incredible shift to the left by many of these democratic candidates?

Continue reading →

Posted on Tony Blair, UK

should tony blair step down?

for some reason i feel compelled to comment on this. 😉

the recent charges against members of blair’s labour government in the cash-for-honours scandal are troubling. it’s hard to imagine how so many people involved with this current scandal could be arrested without cause to do so, which is why it’s surprising that no charges have been brought against those accused of breaking the 1925 Honours Act. when there is an accusation that contributions to a political party directly bought titles or influenced a policy decision, those accusations should be seriously dealt with. no votes should be bought.  the amount given to a political party should not determine who holds positions of power in the party.  in a perfect world, this would be the case, but we don’t live in a perfect world. those with the money have more control over political parties than those who don’t.  that’s just the way it is. 

as for the unfortunate prime minister, it seems to me that the british people have found him guilty until proven innocent.  tony blair has been prime minister in the UK for 10 years. that’s a long time. they want and need an excuse to get rid of him. he has been questioned about this scandal several times now and each time it was as a witness, not as a suspect in the case. he has not been charged with anything, and of course, denies doing anything wrong. i believe him. i’m probably the only one who does. if he is innocent, as i suspect, then he should welcome the investigation.

the bigger question to me is: who will replace tony blair when he chooses to step down? will it be blair-lite david cameron, fan of the nanny state?  will it finally be gordon brown’s turn to live in number 10? will it be some unknown stealing the spotlight from both of these men? the only prediction i feel confident in making is that the next PM probably won’t be a LibDem.