Month: May 2007

6 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

newt takes on the establishment again

From the New Yorker:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

I think Newt’s right about this. Republicans have been tagged with that label, and it’s going to be hard to recover from that perception. Congressional Republicans did not handle their responsibilities well when they had the majority, and voters recognized that last November when they handed over power to the “not them” Democrats. President Bush should share some of the blame for what happened in the November mid-term elections as well.  The President of the United States is supposed to be the head of our party, but instead he has abdicated that role to conservative talk radio and blogs.  It’s up to the grassroots activists to fight for a re-direction in Congressional priorities and the needed reforms to solve the problems we face as a nation, since no one in Washington D.C. has the desire to do that.

The question becomes whether Newt is the “not them” candidate for the Republicans in 2008. He certainly hasn’t been shy about criticizing Congress and the Bush administration. He has some fascinating ideas, and I would love to see a debate between Newt and Hillary, if only for the sheer entertainment value of such a confrontation. Maybe he’s been out of Congress long enough to be considered an outsider, but it will be hard for him to shake his controversial history while Speaker of the House.  I’m having a hard time believing that Newt Gingrich is electable, but it’s probably a mistake to underestimate his chances, especially this early in the presidential race.

Tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, Moonbats

cindy sheehan gives up on the democrats

It’s over. It’s all over.  Cindy Sheehan is frustrated with the Democrats over their inability to stop the war, and that’s certainly understandable if you believe that the best way to conclude the Iraq project is to leave now and not worry about the consequences. She should have expected this. The Democrats are far more pragmatic about Iraq in their actions than they are in their rhetoric, and there’s no way that they could have done what Sheehan wanted them to do. There was some hope of it when Democrats won the majority back, but now it’s clear to the anti-war left that they will be disappointed with the Democrats (at least for now).
Here’s part of what she said:

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too…which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. This is not my “Checkers” moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

The Austin-American Statemen sums up the Sheehan legacy here:

Sheehan is right when she says more Americans seem to care about who becomes the next American Idol than how many troops will die this week in Iraq. But her intemperate resignation missive is emblematic of why the peace movement she represented hasn’t gained purchase in a nation that opposes the war in Iraq, is dismayed with Congress and disapproves of President Bush.

Unlike some other movement leaders, Sheehan expected Americans to agree with her because she cared so deeply. To agree with her because she sacrificed so much and worked so hard. She may have expected a sprint but she found herself in a marathon. In American life, big victories seldom come quickly or easily.

In the end, Sheehan was undone not by her enemies but by her most radical supporters.

What started out as a quest by a heartbroken mother to find answers for her son Casey’s death in Iraq turned into something else entirely. While many Americans could sympathize with Sheehan and the pain she was feeling, her association with radical leftists such as Code Pink and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez damaged her credibility as a spokesperson for the anti-war movement.  She’s trying to paint herself as some kind of sacrificial lamb for the anti-war cause, and it’s just not an accurate description of the way Sheehan handled the platform that she was given. She enjoyed the spotlight a little too much. She said crazy things that the media actually repeated in print or on television.

With responsibility comes accountability, and Cindy Sheehan refused to accept either for her role in derailing the anti-war bandwagon and making the debate all about her.  Americans can oppose the war in Iraq while still believing that America is a positive force in the world, but this isn’t what Sheehan believes.  She believes most of the trouble in the world is caused by the United States. That’s my main problem with her, and that’s also not a popular message with most Americans. I hope that Cindy Sheehan finds peace in her life, even though we disagree on the war and her choice of friends, but I have a feeling that this won’t be the last we hear from her.

Tags: , ,

Posted on George W. Bush

memorial day

President Bush at Arlington National Cemetery:

…The greatest memorial to our fallen troops cannot be found in the words we say or the places we gather. The more lasting tribute is all around us — a country where citizens have the right to worship as they want, to march for what they believe, and to say what they think. These freedoms came at great costs — and they will survive only as long as there are those willing to step forward to defend them against determined enemies.

As before in our history, Americans find ourselves under attack and underestimated. Our enemies long for our retreat. They question our moral purpose. They doubt our strength of will. Yet even after five years of war, our finest citizens continue to answer our enemies with courage and confidence. Hundreds of thousands of patriots still raise their hands to serve their country; tens of thousands who have seen war on the battlefield volunteer to re-enlist. What an amazing country to produce such fine citizens.

read more here.

 

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Iraq, Liberals

fun with quotes

Who said this:

Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal. Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council.

It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world’s commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction… Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations’ credibility.

That stirring defense of the war, helpfully provided by deputy assistant to the President Peter Wehner here, was made by none other than former Senator John Edwards. So not only did he vote to authorize the war in Iraq, he actually tried to convince others to do the same with the exact same arguments used by the Bush administration. I’m not sure a simple “I was wrong” should be sufficient for the anti-war left to embrace Edwards, but apparently it is.

Edwards calls the global war on terror a bumper-sticker slogan. You can deride the terminology, dismiss it as a useless Bush formulation, and disapprove of Bush’s handling of foreign policy. But no matter what you call it, the threat of Islamic extremism leading to terrorist activity is real, and we need to be proactive in dealing with that threat. John Edwards is doing what he has to do to keep his base on his side, even if that means saying things that the rest of the country does not agree with. This may win him a few netroots fans, but it’s no way to win a Democratic primary or general election.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

defending ron paul (sort of)

It’s fashionable in Republican circles to bash Ron Paul for his non-interventionist views of foreign policy, and unfortunately for Dr. Paul, that argument doesn’t seem realistic based on the actions of Iran, North Korea, and others wanting to join the nuclear club. It also sounded too much like what the Democrats would have said if they were given the same question. That’s why Giuliani was able to score significant political points by condemning Paul’s remarks on 9/11.

Less worthy of discussion were Paul’s remarks on cutting the size of government. Every Republican running for President talks about reducing spending and the size of government, but when asked what they would cut, only Ron Paul had actually thought much about the subject. Wendell Goler asked him this question, and here’s what he said.

REP. PAUL: I’d start with the departments — the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security. We’ve started with — we’ve just — the Republicans put in the Department of Homeland — it’s a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it’s unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods and the hurricanes.

So yes, there’s a lot of things that we can cut, but we can’t cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do. If you think that we can continue to police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars running a welfare state, an entitlement system that has accumulated $60 trillion worth of obligations, and think that we can run the economy this way; we spend so much money now that we have to borrow nearly $3 billion a day from foreigners to take care of our consumption, and we can’t afford that.

We can’t afford it in the government, we can’t afford it as a nation.

So tax reform should come, but spending cuts have to come by changing our attitude what government ought to be doing for us.

You can disagree with him about foreign policy, but on spending and bureaucracy he’s exactly right. I’m not convinced that congressional Republicans still subscribe to Paul’s skepticism of the effectiveness of bureaucracy and the necessity of reducing spending (if in fact they EVER did). As we have seen, they excel at paying lip service to what they think we want to hear, and then proceed to feed the beast, feigning surprise that this government behemoth continues to grow. And somehow it’s all someone else’s fault.

Ron Paul says that we need to change our philosophy about what government should do. Hard to argue with that statement. We have given the responsibility to government to fix everything that ails our great nation, and that has been a huge mistake. Both Republicans and Democrats now believe in an activist government, and even some conservatives are buying into the myth.

Continue reading →

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

that didn’t go very well

This hasn’t been a good week for Senator John McCain and his pal Senator Lindsey Graham.  After McCain’s stronger showing at the 2nd debate, his campaign was on the rebound.  The timing of this announced deal on “comprehensive immigration reform” couldn’t be any worse for him, and standing next to Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter talking about how wonderful bi-partisan deals are isn’t the best way to win over that already suspicious conservative base. It’s a great example of how out of touch with the conservative base McCain is, and how out of touch our senators and congresspeople are that they would not realize that there would be strong opposition to this immigration proposal.  Here in South Carolina,  we had an chance to voice that opposition directly to one of the senators responsible for trying to push this proposal through before we have a chance to examine it carefully.

I give Senator Graham credit for being willing to show up on Saturday at the South Carolina Republican convention and attempt to explain why he supports this legislation. But I believe he’s wrong on this, and so do most of the conservatives in attendance Saturday. That’s why he got such a negative reaction. Some of them consider this issue so important that there has been talk of finding a primary challenger for him when he’s up for re-election next year.  I’m not ready to sign on to that effort just yet, but that’s how seriously Republicans here take this issue.  I emailed Senator Graham Thursday to let him know that I was opposed to this bill, and I must not have been the only one, because he was noticeably on the defensive Saturday. He shouldn’t act so surprised that we booed him when he tried to convince us that this was the best deal we could get on immigration. If he didn’t completely understand the extent of our opposition when he walked into that convention hall, he understands it now.

We can also credit the “comprehensive immigration bill” with doing two other things: causing a minor scuffle between our senators Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham and providing an opportunity for Romney to indirectly hammer McCain, which he did.  Senator DeMint, to his credit, has called for further review of this bill and wasn’t afraid to challenge supporters like Senator Graham directly in his remarks to the convention.  That made for some awkward moments, since DeMint spoke right after Graham. On some levels, it is unfair to tag John McCain and Lindsey Graham as RINOs or apostates simply because they defend this flawed legislation.  On most issues of importance to South Carolinians, they are two of the most reliable conservative votes.  However, the problem with illegal immigration is one we take very seriously.  We see the lack of border enforcement now, and we can’t help but notice that only lip service is paid to current laws.  Supporters of this bill may very well be correct that there are penalties for law-breakers in this immigration bill, but when current law is not being followed, how can we possibly believe the government is up to the challenge of enforcing all these new restrictions? The short answer is: we don’t.

Continue reading →

4 Comments Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals

smackdown: the carter vs. bush edition

If I had former President Jimmy Carter’s dubious record of achievement, I would be more careful about calling another President’s administration the “worst in history”. Someone might actually call him on it, like Deputy WH Press Secretary Tony Fratto, who said, ” I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there…I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.” Indeed. He’s entitled to his opinion, but to suggest that Carter would have had more of a clue on foreign policy (especially Iraq) is to totally ignore his history. He might not want to give us an opportunity to look at it again. I’m just sayin’.

Tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on Conservatives, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

fight

If we really want to see the Republican party become more responsive to conservatives, we can’t jump ship. We have to stay in the party and work to keep them accountable for their actions. Conservatives haven’t won a lot of victories from the fighting we’ve been doing with Republicans in Congress and with the Bush administration. But we won’t get any more victories, even of the minor variety, if we give up and stop fighting for what we believe is the best direction for our country. Even the smallest spark can start a fire. We got the immovable to move when we stopped the nomination of Harriet Miers. Another “success” of the conservatives could be the furious debate we had about the Dubai ports deal. If we get enough people to care enough about the direction of this country and the direction of our party and to speak up about it, eventually Washington politicians will pay attention.

The leadership of the Republican party knows that there is no place for social conservatives in the Democratic party. They are confident that small-government types won’t find much to like about the Democrats’ approach to social programs and spending. They also know that what conservatives find lacking in the Republican party can’t be found in the Democratic party right now. They take us for granted, because they can. If our senators do not understand that a majority of Americans want a commitment to border-enforcement first before any concessions to illegal aliens are made, then they need to start paying more attention to what their constituents have been telling them. Maybe this immigration debate will cause more people to start paying attention to what Congress is trying to do, and at least some good will come out of this flawed legislation. Speak up. Speak louder. We have the attention of Congress at this moment. Let’s see what we can do with it.

Tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Illegal Immigration

amnesty for illegals

Like it or not, it’s going to happen. President Bush is going to get exactly what he wanted from the very beginning. Congress authorized a border fence which isn’t even close to being completed. If that doesn’t prompt questions as far as the level of commitment to border enforcement, it should. This is one of the consequences of staying home or voting for Democrats last election. I realize that Republicans didn’t deserve to win, but I also know that a Republican majority would be less likely to cave on this bad immigration reform bill.

We will also find out that this kind of immigration reform doesn’t solve the problem, if we didn’t already realize that from the ’86 amnesty. How can any candidate be serious about national security if they do not recognize the need to secure our borders? This is a real problem for McCain and Lindsey Graham around here, and it will hurt both of them if this bill passes. McCain must know this. Maybe he just doesn’t care. There’s no virtue in being consistently wrong. I hope he recognizes this, or he’s got bigger problems that he will have to deal with in future debates.

More at Townhall.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

debate wrap-up

What a pleasant change from the first Republican debate this one was. Yes, it was hosted by the EEEVIL Fox News Channel, but no objective person could accuse the moderators of throwing softballs at any of the candidates. The questions were pitched high and hard and some of ’em landed a significant blow on their targets. I would really like to see the Democrats face the same kind of abuse, but thanks to John Edwards’ tough stand against Fox News, it won’t happen. Speaking of John Edwards, he got a little smack from Mike Huckabee (with much applause): “Congress is spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop”. HAHA. That will get him a few YouTube clips. Mike Huckabee looked just as strong in this debate as the last one, and I would like to hear more from him, including more on the Fair Tax.

My overall impression of the top three hasn’t changed, but I would rank them differently than last time based on their performance last night. Romney moves down to third. Solid but not spectacular showing. He also had one sound-bite type line where he says that McCain-Kennedy (the immigration bill) would be just as bad as McCain-Feingold. (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the general idea.) He got the predictable “how conservative are you…REALLY”? His answer was a strong one, at least in my opinion. I think it’s a fair position to support 2nd amendment rights and also to support an assault weapons ban. I have no problem with people owning guns, and there’s a good argument to be made for that right. But I don’t see any solid reason why the average citizen should own any kind of assault weapon. That’s a reasonable restriction to have on the 2nd amendment. It also should be ok to oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians while still believing that marriage should be only between a man and woman. Neither of these issues should be an either/or proposition. He handled this question better in this debate than the last one. I liked what he had to say about Iraq, and he seemed to understand the broad scope of the GWOT. I’m still not sold on that “personally pro-life” line, but it sounds better to me than how Giuliani explains why he’s pro-choice.

McCain did well, even though I thought that his “drunken sailor” joke fell flat, especially when compared to Huckabee’s John Edwards crack. He didn’t have any memorable moments except for his attempted slap at Romney, after Romney criticized both McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold.  In any case, I would put McCain in 2nd place.

Rudy gets the top spot, just because of his awesome smackdown of Ron Paul. The other candidates would have wanted to get this KO on Paul, who blamed the US for 9/11. Rudy got the fat fastball, and did not miss the pitch. He asked Ron Paul to withdraw that statement. Paul was given the opportunity to back off, and he did not. Video here. Even though I have strong reservations about Giuliani as a social conservative, he continues to impress in other areas, and that’s why social conservatives will continue to consider Giuliani as a potential nominee.

Continue reading →