Month: December 2007

Posted on Democracy

pakistan in chaos

Andy McCarthy on the Benazir Bhutto assassination:

Jihadists are not going to be wished away, rule-of-lawed into submission, or democratized out of existence. If you really want democracy and the rule of law in places like Pakistan, you need to kill the jihadists first. Or they’ll kill you, just like, today, they killed Benazir Bhutto.

Read it all here.

Speaking of those presidential candidates, most of them took the time to release statements about the Bhutto assassination.

The war on terror (or “the terrorists’ war on us” as Rudy says) is not over. We may be winning a few battles here and there, but there is more work to be done by the next President to keep us on the right track. It would be nice if democracy and free elections was some kind of cure-all to what ails those countries sympathetic to Islamic rule. It’s not, so we do need to keep killing jihadists. There isn’t an easier way to stabilize Pakistan.

Tags: ,

3 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

difference

Matt Bai on Bill and Hillary:

This may be the defining difference between the candidacies of Bill Clinton and his wife, between Clintonism and Hillaryism, if such a thing can be said to exist. Like most successful outsiders, Bill Clinton directly challenged the status quo of both his party and the country, arguing that such a tumultuous moment demanded more than two stark ideologies better suited to the past. By contrast, Hillary Clinton’s campaign to this point has been mostly about restoring an old status quo; she holds herself up as the best chance Democrats have to end eight years of Bush’s “radical experiment” and to return to the point where her husband left off. It has been a strong but safe campaign, full of nondescript slogans (“I’m In to Win!” “The Change We Need!”) and familiar, if worthy, policy prescriptions. That might be a shrewd primary strategy, but winning a general election could well require a more inspiring rationale. Nonincumbents who go on to win the White House almost always take some greater risk along the way, promising changes more profound — if potentially more divisive — than a return to normalcy. The reformer runs great danger. The more cautious candidate merely runs.

A vote for Hillary is not a vote for change — it’s a vote for the 90’s and a vote for a promise that she won’t be any different than her husband if she’s elected. To some Democrats, this may be exactly what they want. I know some Democrats who would vote Bill in again if they could. But this world isn’t the same as in 1992. We need a President who is capable of dealing with the new problems and challenges we face in this changing world. If you are someone whose main objective is radical change from the policies of George W. Bush, then you will get that from Obama and Edwards. Hillary is a candidate who is less likely to step out and take political risks. If you liked the first two Clinton terms, then Hillary’s your girl. The Clintons need to stop thinking about the past, and start thinking about the future, because Obama’s still out there.

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

there was a debate today?

Yes…if you want to call that a debate. Again I ask, what are these presidential candidates trying to hide by having these afternoon debates?

Anyway…

Top three: Romney, Fred, Giuliani. Romney is strong as a policy wonk. Talking about economic issues rather than social issues allows Romney to play to that strength. I linked to National Review’s endorsement editorial yesterday. It looks like Romney read it thoroughly and tried to make the same argument for his nomination as they did in that editorial. Wise move. Fred looked great in this debate, but he needs to look more awake during the candidate introductions. Little things like this matter because of the narrative that’s already been written about Fred. It’s easy to like Fred when he is on the attack. Conservatives like criticism of the NEA’s role in our educational system. Another Fred highlight was when he refused to play along with the climate change question. We need to see more of Fred the fighter. Unfortunately, it may have come too late for Fred to have a realistic shot at the nomination. Giuliani didn’t do anything to hurt himself, and had some good answers. I just don’t remember what they were.

Shouldn’t have shown up – Alan Keyes. The Des Moines Register did him a huge favor (or maybe they were just obligated to include him under their own criteria). In either case, he didn’t take advantage of the opportunity, instead blaming the moderator for shutting him out of the discussion on several occasions. When she did allow him to speak, he filibustered during his time and didn’t give straight answers to any question that he was asked. There’s a good reason he’s only polling around 2% in Iowa.

Made CNN’s debate look good — the debate moderator and the Des Moines Register. She didn’t give the candidates enough time to answer questions. She didn’t ask follow-up questions when necessary. She also lost control of the debate several times.

In there somewhere — Huck, Hunter, Tancredo, Ron Paul. The good thing for the new Iowa leader is that the moderator didn’t allow enough time for direct shots at him. Huckabee continues to coast along without getting very specific on policy issues, and breaking out more new catchphrases and one-liners won’t make him look any more serious as a potential President. It’s hard to see how Huck can maintain his lead with all of the increased media scrutiny he has been getting lately.

I’m not sure if those who took the time to watch this debate changed their minds about their preferred candidate, but those supporting Fred had to like what they saw from him today.

More fun with Iowa debates tomorrow when it’s the Democrats’ turn to answer questions.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

a big endorsement for romney

Mitt gets the support of National Review.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially based on the discussion on The Corner over the past year or so. It’s no secret that editor Kathryn Lopez is a big fan, but it must have been hard to reach a consensus on this, since there are others at NRO who are openly supporting other candidates.

An excerpt:

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

That’s one question I’ve always had about Rudy Giuliani.  Can he win enough blue states to make up for the loss of some red states usually solid for Republican nominees? I don’t know the answer to that question. He might be able to do it, but there are no guarantees.  On the other hand, I have more doubts about a Huckabee candidacy than I do about Giuliani’s bid. Right now the fiscal and foreign-policy conservatives see Huckabee as a serious threat to their worldview if elected. With all of the foreign policy challenges we have, we can’t afford to have a rookie making those decisions. He has the same naive belief in the power of diplomacy as many of the Democrats.  The most optimistic view of Huckabee’s record on spending is that it is a mixed bag of tax cuts and tax increases.  We don’t know which Huckabee we will get as President — the tax cutter or the tax hiker.  But his faith in government is disturbing, and it’s enough to keep the fiscal cons off of the Huckabee bandwagon.

There is no question that a Giuliani or a Huckabee nomination would split the conservative base in the way the National Review editorial describes.  Republicans need a united base in order to have a fighting chance against the Democratic nominee. Of course, the threat of a Hillary presidency is scary enough that Giuliani could overcome the loss of some social conservatives. But we should acknowledge the possibility of such a split in the base when deciding on our nominee.

Tags: , , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

romney’s speech

Read it all here.

Watch it here.

I’m going to pull some excerpts from his remarks and make a few comments on the parts of the speech that stuck out when I read them.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today. Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

This may be an unpopular view to some religious conservatives, but Romney is absolutely right. Being a Christian, or a Mormon, or a person of any other faith should not be a qualification or disqualification for public office. It certainly doesn’t speak to a person’s ability to govern the country, as Jimmy Carter has shown us. Mike Huckabee is a a great guy. We all agree on that. He is someone who agrees 100% with all of the social conservative issues. He’s not the guy I want as President, because he has the same kind of faith in diplomacy as the Democrats. Huck should be working on getting some serious foreign advisors, and he should have someone on his staff read and brief him on the latest NIE, so he is prepared when reporters ask questions about it.

But back to Romney…he’s the guy I see as someone who will surround himself with experts who can give him the best advice, from domestic/economic policy to foreign policy. He did this as a CEO, and that’s been his pattern throughout his business career and his political career. That’s the kind of approach to government I want to see in a President. While it’s important to have a nominee who shares our values, it’s just as important to have one who can handle the job of being President. That’s why given the choice between Romney and Huckabee, I’m still going with Romney.

Here’s more of his speech:

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

Romney should be given credit for saying that he would not change his religious beliefs to win an election. He says that Americans do not respect “believers of convenience”. He’s right. They don’t. Neither do social conservatives. The problem many conservatives have with Romney has more to do with conveniently-timed conversion on other issues than it does about his Mormonism. They don’t trust him because they don’t believe that he has deeply-held principles about anything, and that he would say anything to get elected. They think that Romney is one of those who would “jettison their beliefs” for political advantage. I’m not sure that making promises not to change on his Mormon faith addresses those concerns.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

This is what Romney should have said at the debate, or a shorter version of what he said here. He appeared to be blindsided by the question about the Bible, and he kept repeating “The Bible is the Word of God”, hesitating on whether he should add anything else to that answer. It is a strength of our nation, not a weakness, that we have such diversity in our religious beliefs. That’s something our country has always had from its inception. He goes on to give examples of that diversity, and to explain what people of all religious faiths have in common.

I love this part in particular. (If Romney wrote this himself, the man is gifted with words…)

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

This speech hit many hot buttons for a conservative audience. The idea that separation of church and state also means that the state can’t interfere with the free exercise of religion — that’s an article of faith for most social conservatives. He even indirectly mentioned the “war on Christmas”. There is much to like about this Romney speech, but I’m not sure if he wins any converts from Huckabee by it. Maybe he doesn’t have to. If the goal was to make Romney look less scary to everyone else, then mission accomplished.

Tags: ,

Posted on College Football, Ohio State Buckeyes, Random Musings

my thoughts on the bcs

You all know my obvious bias. I am and will always be a serious Ohio State Buckeyes football fan. I am happy that they are playing in the national championship game. For the record, I would have been just as happy with a USC/ OSU Rose Bowl game. But that’s not what the BCS decided. There are good reasons why their right to be there is being questioned. It’s fair to question the strength of a schedule that includes Akron, Youngstown State, and Kent State. But it’s not their fault the Big Ten is weak, and that they don’t have the last official championship game. Some flaws in their resume they can’t control. They did end up winning the Big Ten, which should count for something. It’s reasonable to question OSU’s resume. Where those people lose me is when they start talking about Hawaii as the team that they think should replace Ohio State. Yes, they are undefeated, but they played an even weaker schedule than the Buckeyes. The only way for OSU to get the respect they lack from the national press and from the fans of other worthy championship teams is to play LSU and to win that game. I think that they can do it.

All this is not to defend the BCS. It’s a deeply flawed system that produces flawed matchups and much controversy. We need a playoff system and we need it now. Teams should be rewarded for playing tough schedules, and that’s not what we get with the current system. Maybe teams like Ohio State would play tougher schedules if they knew that they still had a chance at the national championship with 2 losses. The BCS provides no incentive to do this. There should be a way to determine which 1-2 loss teams are the best teams. Playoffs would be one way to determine which 2 teams deserve that last game. That said, the regular season should matter in college football. I think that it’s a bad argument to say that only the hottest teams at the end of the season should play in major bowl games. It’s impossible to get an objective measure of the top 8-10 teams without a playoff, so until we get one, there will always be arguments and controversy over who’s #1.

Technorati Tags: , , ,