Democrats

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Republicans

embrace the nuance

Michael Medved explains why Rudy is different than Hillary on abortion.

Consider, for instance, the key differences between Giuliani’s platform and those of the leading Democratic candidates. Giuliani has committed to preserve the Hyde Amendment, banning taxpayer money for abortions; the top Democrats urge repeal and favor federal funding. Giuliani applauded the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion; all leading Democrats condemned it in harsh terms. The former mayor supports tougher rules requiring parental notification (with a judicial bypass) for underage girls who seek abortions; Clinton and Barack Obama oppose such legislation. Most significant of all, Giuliani has specifically cited strict-constructionists Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts as his models for future justices of the Supreme Court — and all three of those jurists have signaled their support for allowing states more leeway in limiting abortions. The top Democrats regularly express contempt for the conservative jurists whom Giuliani admires, and worked against the Alito and Roberts nominations.

I will note, however, that Rudy’s position on federal funding of abortions has changed over the years. But I think there’s common ground to be found here on the abortion issue, especially when pro-lifers consider the alternative. The pro-life community has a moral problem with abortion, and even though most Americans don’t agree with banning abortion entirely, both sides should agree on reasonable limits to the practice. That’s where social conservatives who consider abortion one of their main concerns can accept Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee, because there are significant distinctions between his pro-choice position and that of any of his Democrat opposition.

Tags: , , ,

4 Comments Posted on Democrats

jane harman is right

We should never shrink from our responsibility to recognize and to condemn genocide wherever we see it, but the timing of this House resolution condemning Turkey for their past actions against Armenians is very questionable. We have passed similar resolutions previously, and I don’t see the purpose in another resolution, especially now, when we depend so much on Turkey for help with Iraq and in the region.  Besides, I thought that the main focus of Democrats as far as condemning genocide was Sudan.  When did the focus shift to Turkey?  Turkey may have an imperfect past.  Right now we need them.

Representative Jane Harman, one of the sensible Democrats, explains why she no longer supports the resolution that she co-sponsored:

I originally co-sponsored the resolution because I was convinced that the terrible crime against the Armenian people should be recognized and condemned. But after a visit in February to Turkey, where I met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox patriarch and colleagues of murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, I became convinced that passing this resolution again at this time would isolate and embarrass a courageous and moderate Islamic government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world.

So I agree with eight former secretaries of State — including Los Angeles’ own Warren Christopher — who said that passing the resolution “could endanger our national security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia.”

Timing matters. I asked a leader in California’s Armenian American community just days ago why the resolution was being pushed now. “They didn’t ask me,” he said. It wasn’t his call, and he probably would not have pushed it.

So what is the endgame? I would hope that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Turkey and Armenia will work toward reconciliation and normalization of relations.

About 70,000 Armenians live in Turkey, and Turkey continues to admit more. Yet Article 301 of Turkey’s Constitution prohibits insulting “Turkishness” — a disturbing provision that has been used to punish Armenians in Turkey who insist the genocide took place. Surely an act of reconciliation would be to embrace the Armenian population in Turkey and repeal Article 301.

Further, Turkey and Armenia have held recent talks about normalizing relations. They share mutual interests in trade, especially in the energy sector. Now is a good time to engage.

And, of course, there is the need for stability in the region. Turkey shares a border with Iraq, and the need for its continued restraint with the Kurds and for its leadership in promoting stability and resolving the Israel-Palestine issue is obvious. Armenia can help.

Harman makes a convincing argument here. We don’t have many allies in the region, and it would be in our interest not to alienate the ones we have. This is not a question of being silent and allowing atrocities to occur.  Turkey has moved on from that, and since we have already passed resolutions condemning Turkey for similar crimes, we need to move on as well.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Iraq, Liberals

duh

Apparently there are still folks who not only believe the Democrats have made a serious attempt to end the war in Iraq, they also believe that electing a Democrat as President in 2008 will mean all of the troops come home. Unless the country decides to take a chance on Kucinich, Gravel, or Richardson, it’s not going to happen. The left would have a better shot at this outcome if a Democrat was elected, of course, but Hillary hasn’t committed to the kind of troop withdrawal they want. They know this, which is why there are so many posts on the progressive blogs chastising the Dems for giving in to Bush on the war in Iraq. They are right to be critical, since if the Democrats really wanted to end the war and bring the troops home, they could refuse to fund the war. It’s politically suicidal, but many on the left don’t care much about that. Why should they? It’s not their jobs on the line.

Carolyn Lockhead expands on this point in the San Francisco Chronicle, trying to give her fellow travelers a clue. Good luck with that, Carolyn.

Tags: , ,

Posted on Editorials, Liberals

lefties love ahmadinejad

There is a stunning level of moral equivalence demonstrated by one sign seen at Columbia University yesterday: “Ahmadinejad is bad, but Bush is worse”. It is hard to explain how this makes any sense when we consider what we know about both men. Liberals still consider the 2000 election stolen. That’s the primary reason behind all the Dubya hate. They believe President Bush cheated to win, and they can’t accept any other explanation. It’s not just about the war in Iraq. They just find the war in Iraq to be a more popular excuse that the average person in this country might be able to accept.

President Bush, with a majority of Republican and Democrat support, ordered the invasion of Iraq. Is it this well-intentioned decision that qualifies our President as the moral equivalent of a man who believes in the full implementation of Sharia law, and someone who does not believe in extending the same rights he enjoyed here in this country to his own people? If we had any other president, and especially a Democrat, would we hear this kind of tripe from the left?

Speaking of Sharia law…

Here’s the kind of guy the left prefers to Bush. Ahmadinejad is someone who supports Hizballah terrorists, refuses to admit that he is aiding the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq (despite evidence of it), and someone who believes that not only is Israel not a state, but also that it should not exist at all. He opposes freedom of speech, assembly, and most of the rights Americans take for granted, and he actively prevents Iranians from speaking their mind and opposing their government. Try all those clever protests the lefties put on at Columbia in Iran, and see how well that works for ya. Liberals generally support gay marriage and tolerance of many alternative lifestyles. In Iran, Ahmadinejad claimed, “there are no homosexuals”. That’s probably because his government has them executed. Sharia law makes no allowances for alternative lifestyles. It also allows the oppression of women.

Women’s rights, despite what their President might tell you, are virtually non-existent in Iran. If you read Robert Spencer, or the Atlas Shrugs blog, or Little Green Footballs, you will find out the extremes to which women’s rights are surrendered under Islamic law. Things like acceptable wife-beating, polygamy, divorce laws which favor the men over the women, female circumcision, rape laws which don’t allow the women’s testimony to be admissible in court, instead requiring 4 male witnesses to the event to prove it occurred – all of this is part of the Islamic law supported by Ahmadinejad and his religious buddies the mullahs.

The Iranian President is ignoring the plank in his own country’s eye, which decrying the speck in America’s. He has no freedom of speech rights. That’s for American citizens. He also should have been restricted to the area surrounding the UN. His Secret Service protection should have been limited to that area. If you read or listen to his statements regarding Ground Zero, it’s clear that his motive was not to honor the victims of 9/11, but to honor the murderers who caused this attack. For that reason, we were right to keep him from Ground Zero. His propaganda tour should have ended at the UN, but Columbia University allowed him a forum to spread his anti-US message.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger would be given much more credit today for his harsh statements in his introduction of Ahmadinejad if he actually had taken a meaningful stand and not invited the guy in the first place.

Tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats

another presidential debate you didn’t see

Come on, Democrats — what are you trying to hide having a Sunday morning debate in Iowa? 😉 Not that one more debate would change my mind about the Democratic field or anything…but the timing is just as bad for Democrats as it is for Republicans. 

Transcript here if you’re interested, although you won’t find any surprises in it. I haven’t made up my mind about the Republican field, but I do know I won’t be voting for any of these Democrats.  I do agree with Barack Obama on one thing though — there are too many debates.

 

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Editorials

it’s not racial

That’s the best answer I can give to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson who wants to make Barack Obama’s standings in the polls about his race. It’s not about that. He asks if “white America” is ready to elect an African-American as our President, and cites our previous history with segregation, slavery, and civil rights.  There’s no question that we have struggled as a nation with racism, and to some degree we still do. But the only ones who seem to be obsessed with Obama’s race are the media. They keep bringing it up as if we SHOULD care about it.

Most Americans will vote based on which candidate they feel is the most capable of leading this country.  Many of the South Carolina Democrats in the poll he mentions are probably supporting Hillary over Barack for this reason, not because of racism. It doesn’t look like a coincidence that Mr. Robinson mentions South Carolina as part of the “white America” that he claims could keep Obama from the nomination. Even though I don’t generally give any Democrats the benefit of the doubt, I think that Robinson is trying to make a connection that isn’t there.  There may be a few who will not vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, or Barack because he’s African-American.  That’s not representative of the whole state of South Carolina, nor is it representative of this country overall.  I resent the implication that the main reason Barack isn’t making up much ground on Hillary in the polls in South Carolina and elsewhere is because of his race.  There are other reasons for that, but nothing that makes for an exciting story on the frontpage of a website or newspaper.

Americans deserve more credit than they are being given here. We can judge for ourselves whether a candidate has the right combination of charisma, experience, and leadership to be our choice for President. We can judge for ourselves what kind of President that candidate would be, not based on race, gender or even religion – and we don’t need the media’s approval for our choice.  The candidates on both sides would be wise to keep that in mind.

Tags: ,

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

mostly unedited thoughts on the youtube debate

I was about to give the YouTubers credit for keeping the conversation serious, and then the second half of the debate happened.  Of course I think CNN gets most of the blame for this.  Maybe the entertainment factor is a good thing for political junkies who are close to getting burned out with all these debates. I Loved the snowman video as well as the one with the folks from TN, and the singing tax guy.

Quick takes on the candidates:

Hillary Clinton – continues to impress.  Who’s going to stop her from getting to the finish line? Not any of these guys.  She was asked about whether she considers herself a liberal.  Of course not. She’s a “progressive” just like all the  other Democratic proponents of expanding government.

Barack Obama – ok, but not spectacular.  Had a few good answers.  Maybe it’s unfair to compare him to Hillary.  Made a strong defense of his approach (more affordable coverage) to health care vs. John Edwards’ approach(mandating coverage).

John Edwards – Hair looked good as always.  Nice tie. Got more than enough time to talk about his signature issues.  Would have loved to hear him go into more detail on his statement in Cleveland regarding a national fund to help people in danger of losing their homes.

Biden – one of the many “truth to power” candidates on Iraq. I don’t mean that he is right about everything he says.  Just that he seems to have a more realistic take on the aftermath of Iraq than most of the other candidates. He also had a few great lines…which I will get to shortly.

Richardson – didn’t make any major gaffes (that I noticed anyway)

Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel-  The problem that all these second to fourth tier guys have is that all the niche groups are taken by the top 5. That is, except for the rabidly anti-war group.  Kucinich is a true believer.  You have to credit him for that.  The problem is that, despite what all the polling seems to be telling us, this is not where the country is on the Iraq war and on pre-emptive war in general. Both Kucinich and Gravel kept the debate from getting too serious, but the format of this debate would have made that impossible anyway.

This debate is more about entertaining the public then informing them on the issues.  Buried in the zany videos there have been some serious questions that, as always have only gotten sound-bite type answers.  Kucinich wants us to text for peace. Yup.  I think that it would be more useful to text Kucinich himself and tell him that his time is up as a candidate.
Continue reading →

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

something barack obama needs to explain

Check out this lede from Philip Elliott, AP writer, in his article titled, “Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide”.

He says:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

Obama goes on to say that he believes that there will be bloodshed after we leave Iraq, and yet he thinks that the risk is greater if we stay than if we continue to “occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for terrorist activity”. Well, at least Obama has acknowledged the possibility that there wouldn’t be a painless exit from Iraq. That’s a possibility not many Democrats are willing to even consider.

Barack Obama seems to believe that the answer to Iraq is international forces and more diplomacy. He sees the situation in Iraq as hopeless and chaotic enough that our troops should leave. He appears to suggest that it is time to let the Iraqis deal with the consequences of not meeting their political objectives. Many Democrats agree with Obama on this, but some are more committed to troop withdrawal than others. It’s a sympathetic position to take, even for a few stray Republicans who are deserting the President on this war.

If that’s his position, then how can he then support US military intervention in Darfur? What makes the Iraqis less worthy of being saved from genocide than the Sudanese?

Continue reading →

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

whiner-in-chief

That’s one election John Edwards CAN win. There’s something inconsistent about condemning Ann Coulter’s outrageous remarks against himself and other Democratic presidential candidates, and using those remarks to raise campaign cash. Everything that the Edwards campaign has done recently smacks of desperation.  They know that their chances are getting dimmer for mounting a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It would take a lot of self-restraint to ignore what Ann Coulter says and take the high road here, and it’s clear that John Edwards doesn’t have it.  He took the opportunity to continue to pander to his netroots base by attacking Ann Coulter, one of the left’s favorite targets.  I would have more respect for Edwards if he had taken on Coulter directly, rather than having his wife call into Hardball and confront her. He did make an appearance on Hardball the next day, but it’s not the same thing.

If I was a John Edwards supporter, I would be concerned about the campaign’s attempt to paint him as victim of the right-wing smear machine and powerful forces who are trying to stop Edwards from making necessary changes in Washington.  It makes him look weak.  It makes him look desperate. It also makes him look like a distant third-place candidate in the Democratic presidential field.

If he can’t handle people saying terrible things about him now, he probably doesn’t want to know what he would have to endure as President of the United States.  He would have to take much more abuse from foreign leaders opposed to our foreign policy, from the UN, and from terrorists looking to intimidate the United States into making bad decisions about how to deal with them.  Can he confront those challenges and be a strong voice for the United States and our interests around the world?  That’s a question we need to answer.

Tags: ,