Republicans

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Editorials, Republicans

who’s the boss?

the republicans have a problem, and it’s more serious than the prospect of losing power in november. as much as we would like to think we have an advantage because howard dean is leading the democratic party, we can’t ignore the leadership void in our own party. who’s in charge here? the president is supposed to be running things, and providing leadership. he is doing his level best to defend himself, and to explain his policies to us. i acknowledge that effort. unfortunately, people on both sides of the aisle are losing faith in president bush. what the republicans need is a strong voice who can effectively defend our political philosophy and to explain why we have the right ideas for the country. unfortunately, tony snow’s kind of busy right now with that whole press secretary thing.

who will step up and be the leader that we need? sure we have official republican party leaders, but there’s no spark there, and there’s no big picture vision beyond keeping themselves in power. that’s what made us different from the democrats in the beginning. what was cool about the reagan years? big ideas. optimism for the future of this country. strength in the face of a communist threat. oh yeah, and those infamous tax cuts. that’s what i believe is missing today from both political parties – that expression of optimism about the future. what we have is a bunch of chicken littles running around trying to convince us that the sky is falling.

we need someone who is inspiring and positive, someone who has a bold vision of how to lead this country. we need someone who understands the problems that we face, both foreign and domestic, and who will aggressively deal with those problems. do we have an ’08 candidate who fits that description? we will find out soon enough.

tags: , ,

7 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

it’s just that simple

mort kondracke nails the big question in the november elections. will it be decided by views on iraq or on the war on terrorism? i believe that the answer will determine which party will be left standing at the end.

Republicans think they gain by calling the Democrats “defeatists” on Iraq and by asserting that Democrats are “weak” on terror because they opposed the NSA wiretap program and had qualms about efforts to track terrorist finances through the international banking system.

Who’s actually gaining in this struggle is hard to tell. Traditionally, Republicans lead Democrats in public trust on fighting terrorism by margins of 25 to 30 points, but recent polls have shown that advantage dropping to single digits.

A Pew poll last week showed that more Americans, 69 percent, are concerned Republicans would get the United States involved in new wars than the 57 percent who are worried that Democrats are weak on fighting terror.

This week, however, a Gallup Poll reported Bush’s overall approval rating rose to 42 percent from 37 percent over the two weeks since the London plot was stifled and, for his handling of terrorism, to 55 percent from 47 percent.

But for handling Iraq, he remained mired at 36 percent. And a CBS/New York Times poll showed Americans, by 51 percent to 32 percent, don’t think Iraq represents a “major part” of the war on terror.

If the election hinges on “terror,” Republicans may win. If it’s “Iraq” and things keep looking grim there, it’s a Democratic advantage. That will frame the argument through November.

that’s the disconnect. americans don’t see iraq as a major part of the war on terror. the bad news for president bush is that he has been unable to sell this connection, since saddam didn’t directly order 9/11 and there’s no concrete evidence that he knew about bin laden’s plans. it is an unwinnable battle trying to explain to the american people why iraq was a legitimate target even if it didn’t have a direct link to 9/11. so i’m not going to make that attempt.

this disconnect actually benefits republicans, since bush’s ratings on the overall war on terror vastly exceed his numbers on the war in iraq. that’s why the way the debate is framed makes a huge difference. of course there are other valid criticisms of the party in power, and we all know what those are, but iraq and the war on terror will still be the primary debate going into this midterm.

the final outcome of the iraq war will determine how aggressive we will be as a country in prosecuting the war on terror, and how future and current bad actors will view the resolve of the united states in dealing with threats to its security. you can argue about whether it was part of the war on terror in the beginning, but it certainly is now. our success or failure in iraq will have major consequences for the rest of the region. can we leave iraq a better place than we found it? what will our enemies say about us when the united states military finally leaves iraq? will they be convinced that we are serious about fighting terrorism? those are questions that we will answer, and the world is watching us.

this should not be a partisan snipe-fest. republicans and democrats alike should be equally committed to giving our government the tools it needs to fight this war on terror effectively and to protect us here at home. we should support candidates who take this view, and reject those who don’t.

tags: , , , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals

pot.kettle.black

guess who said this in a chris matthews interview(comments in bold):

I served with George Allen when he was governor. I don‘t think he belongs in public service, to be honest with you. There are Republicans who are capable and smart, thoughtful people, and he‘s not one of them. So you know, the people in Virginia are going to do what they want to do, but I…

Q. You make him sound like a knucklehead. Is that what you think?

I‘m not going to use those kinds of words.

Q. In other words, you‘re saying he doesn‘t belong in public service, because of why?

Because he‘s always shooting from the hip. He never thinks through what he means, and he caters to the wrong instincts in people. And I think using derogatory terms to people of color is certainly something that a public servant might not do.

this makes sense. our public servants should always think before speaking, cater to the best instincts in people, and always be careful not to use racial slurs. too bad howard dean doesn’t follow his own advice. yes, that’s howard dean, chairman of the DNC, lecturing senator allen on how he should behave. you know what they say about people who live in glass houses. if senator allen, who has apologized for what he said, isn’t fit for public service, then neither is howard dean.

until i heard these comments from howard dean, i was undecided about senator allen’s possible presidential run. if any success for allen annoys howard dean, i’m all in. 🙂 seriously, though, i am not going to make any unofficial or official endorsements this early in the game. the field is wide open for the republicans, and senator allen will have more than enough time to recover politically, and be a major player in ’08.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on Democracy, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

buchanan slams the neocons

The Bush democracy campaign brought stunning electoral gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. Our ally Hamid Kharzai is today little more than mayor of Kabul, as the Taliban roam the southeast and coalition casualties reach the highest levels since liberation, five years ago.

North Korea and Iran remain defiant on their nuclear programs. Vladimir Putin is befriending every regime at odds with Bush, from Tehran to Damascus to Caracas. Neocon meddling in The Bear’s backyard has gotten us bit.

Unless we grade foreign policy on the nobility of the intent, which is how the liberals used to defend disasters like Yalta, it is not credible to call Bush’s foreign policy a success. The Lebanon debacle, once U.S. complicity is exposed, is unlikely to win anyone a Nobel.

Bush’s trade policy has left us with annual deficits of $800 billion with the world and $200 billion with Beijing. Once the greatest creditor nation in history, we are now the greatest debtor. U.S. manufacturing has been hollowed out with thousands of plants closed and 3 million industrial jobs vanishing since Bush took office.

As for Bush immigration policy, the nation is in virtual rebellion. Six million aliens have been caught at the Mexican border since he took office. One in 12 had a criminal record. In April-May, millions of Hispanics marched through U.S. cities demanding amnesty and all rights of citizenship for aliens who are breaking the law by even being here. Bush and the Senate are in paralysis, appeasing the lawbreakers by offering amnesties and by opposing House demands that the president seal the border before the invasion brings an end to the America we once knew.

pat buchanan (real clear politics)

it is troubling what has happened in afghanistan with karzai, but that is a result of not completely finishing what we started there, and not as a result of having elections. democracy doesn’t always produce the desired results. it doesn’t automatically make citizens more free simply because they can now cast a vote for the leaders of their choice. there are cultural and societal changes that have to take place before democracy and freedom work in concert with each other. look at the united states for an example. where does our freedom come from? it certainly doesn’t come from the ability to vote, or from our government. freedom is individual. it’s personal. the same theory applies to other countries as well.

worry about iran first. then we can deal with north korea. i wish the president would wake up to the fact that putin is not our friend, and that we need to pay closer attention to what he’s doing.

i’m not going to address buchanan’s comments about trade policy, because i don’t know enough to dispute him on that point. he is dead-on about immigration, and i hope president bush gets the message that we are trying to send. however, i share buchanan’s pessimism about this.

pat buchanan knows where all the problems are. what he doesn’t seem to have is a solution to deal with all of these problems.

tags: , , ,

15 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

unserious

the democrats can’t have this both ways. they can talk all they want to about having a strong and smart foreign policy and a better strategy for dealing with terrorism, but their actions don’t suggest that they are serious about implementing one. from opposing common-sense measures like tracking money transfers and bragging about “killing the Patriot Act” to supporting the candidacy of ned lamont, the democrats now controlling the message haven’t found the right one yet. i realize that on some level, the democratic leadership had to support their senate nominee in connecticut. it’s traditional and all that. there’s something else going on with their support of lamont. ned lamont says what the rest of the democrats are afraid to say. it’s a way for the democrats to look more anti-war than they are without making an actual commitment to do what those like ned lamont want to do. this won’t work with the left wing and it doesn’t really work with me.

that’s because the left wing of the democratic party doesn’t believe the war on terror actually exists. they want to harp about the “politics of fear” and so forth. that’s a problem for the democrats if they want to take the battle to the republicans on national security. terrorism is real. it existed before bush. it will exist after bush is gone. you can hate bush all you want to and oppose his iraq policy all you want to, but at some point someone will ask the democrats how they could improve on the current fight against terrorism while taking away some of the very tools used by the brits to stop the recent terror plot in their country. i doubt their answer would reassure voters that they can improve on the record of the bush administration. i am also amazed that many polls rate democrats ahead of republicans on national security when it’s not even clear that the dems have a credible alternative plan on iraq. iraq is a struggle right now, i will admit that, but the democrats can’t figure out how to fix it either.

Continue reading →

10 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

suggestions for republicans

iraq is not a black-and-white issue. that’s something i think both republicans and democrats should keep in mind in all of their election prep work, whether it’s for the november election this year or the presidential election in ’08. i’ll get to my suggestions for republicans in just a minute, but i want to address this first, because i think that the democrats may be misreading the mood of the american people on iraq.

there is a very comprehensive pew research poll here that has mixed results for the bush administration on the views of the american people on the iraq war. while the american people may disagree with bush’s handling of the war, a small majority of them generally believe that we should stay until iraq is stabilized. i realize that public opinion is split on whether we are winning in iraq or not, but i’m fairly certain that most of us would agree that we should win. that’s why even though bush’s iraq strategy isn’t terribly popular, the democrats’ calls for withdrawal from iraq are even less popular. the american people see those calls for withdrawal as some kind of admission of failure in iraq, and that’s something that most of us don’t want to accept.

i don’t believe that withdrawing troops at this point in the war is the best strategy. others may disagree. that’s fine. let’s have the debate, but let’s have an honest one.

keeping this in mind…i offer the following suggestions to my fellow republicans for november ’06:

  • don’t run from iraq. if you voted for the war, admit it. don’t waffle. point out some of the good things happening there, ie. elections, death of zarqawi, completion of new iraqi government. the thing to remember is that whether we agreed or disagreed with the war, the future of iraq is what we have to be concerned about now. we need to finish what we started there.
  • acknowledge mistakes but don’t dwell on them. the voters may forgive you for those mistakes or they may not. it will depend on (if you’re an incumbent) your overall record.
  • if you are in the senate and you voted against the senate immigration bill proposing amnesty to illegal immigrants, make sure to point this out. illegal immigration has become a huge issue, especially in border states. those who are concerned about this issue want to know that their representatives are taking this seriously and that they will put a higher priority on border security than on temporary worker programs.
  • any support of the house immigration bill should be emphasized as well. border security, not rewarding those who break the law, etc, are phrases that will resonate with people. if we really value the american worker, we should always give them the first opportunity to get any available job here in this country. we must hold employers accountable to only hire workers who are legally able to work in this country, and punish the ones who disobey the law.
  • know your audience. find out the important issues to the voters that you will be representing. be able to articulate why you believe what you believe, whether you have a sympathetic audience or not. focus on areas where you can agree with the view of that audience.
  • values, values, values. this is the main difference between republicans and democrats right now…not that democrats are all heathen hell-bound folks, because they are not. it’s fair to say, however, that on issues of concern to social conservatives and christians, they can find more common ground with us than with the democrats. i don’t think i have to spell out what those common values are.
  • always be positive about america, the state you want to represent, and the future of both. sell yourself as the best choice, not as the alternative to a bad choice. constant negativity is a turn-off to voters. we want to be positive and optimistic about where our country is going. give us that opportunity.

that’s my advice. if karl rove gives you different advice, then please listen to him instead. 🙂

9 Comments Posted on Democracy, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

tell ’em what you really think!

so now the republicans care what the rest of us think. it’s about time. apparently they have this survey. here’s the sales pitch. (h/t- california conservative)

The goal is to help the Leadership of the Republican Party gain an on-going and in-depth understanding of the issues which are of greatest concern to Americans like you.

Please take a moment to complete the ASK AMERICA national survey online at www.NRCC.org/AskAmerica.

As we enter this all-important election year, we need to know exactly how you feel about America’s War on Terror, and how secure you feel here at home. We need to know your direct views on many of the most important issues facing our politically divided nation: the economy, national defense, overhaul of America’s tax system, health care, strengthening Social Security, illegal immigration reform, government spending, and much more.

It addresses issues important to every concerned American who cares about the future of this country. It is time that we find out what you, the hard-working American taxpayers, really want.

good idea. so…take this opportunity to share your opinion with them. they asked for it. here’s what i said in the comments:

Border security should be first and foremost in any immigration reform proposals. Current laws must be enforced. The American people are reasonable, and would consider allowing a temporary worker program IF AND ONLY IF the first two conditions apply to any proposed legislation. We just don’t believe either party is serious about controlling our borders. Speaking only for myself here, I would add that we need to be just as serious about securing our country as we are about securing Iraq. There’s quite a bit of anger out there about illegal immigration. I hope that all of you will take our concerns seriously.

if there’s any advice/criticism you have for the republican party, you can also add it here in comments, or trackback from a post on your own blog. just keep it clean, please. 🙂 notably absent from this survey…direct questions about their reckless spending habits. maybe they know the answer to that question.

4 Comments Posted on Conservatives, Democracy, Democrats, Republicans

you can’t always get what you want

Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government – about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues – they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives’ monopoly of the label “values voters,” the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.

george will

social conservatives have values that are shared by many people in this country, but they have to realize two things. first is that they will never get everything they want. legislating moral behavior to the degree that some of them are suggesting is impossible. the second thing they have to keep in mind is that they won’t do any better than they are doing now by voting for the democrats.

there’s nothing wrong with having absolute black and white positions on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. there’s also nothing wrong with saying that a political party would lose support from your group if it does not do what you tell it to do. the flaw in this strategy for groups like this is that they don’t consider the big picture very often. george w. bush may not be their perfect politician, and likewise the republicans may not be 100% hard-core as far as pressing their core issues.

however, there are not many alternatives for groups who see supporting life and opposing gay marriage as their core issues. where would these social conservatives go if they took back their support of the republican party? not to the current group of democrats, that’s for sure. we are talking about the party whose leadership is strongly in support of abortion, of gay marriage, and which also does not have a very comfortable relationship with the Christian community. as well as being out of step with the centrists in his own party, dnc chairman howard dean can’t seem to find much common ground with the rest of the country.

he opposes missouri’s voter id law, which requires voters to have a valid photo ID in order to vote. if he was really concerned about election fraud and people being disenfranchised, you would think that the democratic party would want to support this and other similar laws. this is another one of the many unpopular positions dr. dean has taken while representing the democratic party. even on the war in iraq, the american public doesn’t seem to agree that immediate withdrawal (whatever the current definition of that seems to be) is the right answer to what should be done about iraq.

dean’s attempts to reach out to the 700 club crowd have also fallen flat. that is because he lies about where the democrats are on social issues, and even goes as far as to claim that the democratic platform of 2004 supported the idea of “one man one woman” for marriage. it did not. dear howard, please stop before you hurt yourself. (I guess it’s too late for that warning, isn’t it?) if the centrists don’t like where howard dean is taking their party, then they had better take some serious action now, or they
are headed for another election defeat in ’06.

there is always the option for social conservatives, and for small-government conservatives, to take their ball and go home…that is to stay home on election day, possibly handing the congress over to the democrats. it is a tempting idea, but not because the republican majority hasn’t taken a hard enough line on abortion or the federal marriage amendment. the appeal lies with other areas where republicans haven’t lived up to the expectations we had for them when we elected them. one is spending. as i pointed out previously, these republicans aren’t fond of small government, and have demonstrated that quite well. even those who wish to make the attempt to reduce spending, such as mike pence, are brutally shot down.

the question is then: how do we reform the system? i don’t know if there is a way to significantly impact the process in washington and change the way it currently works. we hold politicians to a higher standard because they represent us, and we should. because i’m a conservative, i believe in personal accountability for everyone, and especially for those in DC representing me. unfortunately, a self-policing system will never provide the level of accountability that is necessary to keep our politicians on the straight and narrow.

that’s why it has become more important to stay engaged and to pay attention to what your representatives and senators are doing, and not just 6 months before an election. even if your congressman or senator is not in your political party, you still have a voice. you still can write letters, make phone calls, and bang on the door (figuratively, of course) until you get an answer.

accountability is not just about elections. it is also about citizens taking an active role and letting their representatives know where they stand on the issues currently being debated. look at what happened with the dubai ports deal. everybody got motivated to call DC and say “hey what the heck are you guys doing up there?” we need to do more of that. i think we are starting to pay more attention to issues, now that illegal immigration is front-and-center. that’s a good thing. i would like to believe that our voices are having some impact in this debate. we shall see what happens with this current immigration legislation in the house and in the senate.

the last word belongs to john hawkins:

Here’s my advice: set your emotions aside and think long and hard about what a Democratically controlled Congress would really mean. Is the satisfaction of, “teaching the Republicans a lesson,” worth the price? Think back to the Clinton years: conservatives certainly stuck it to Old “Read My Lips,” but the price turned out to be eight years of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In my book, that wasn’t such a great trade-off and keep in mind, when you’re talking about congressmen and senators, it could be worse. Incumbent politicians are tougher to get rid of than a cockroach infestation and 40 years from now, do you really want to be sitting around, remembering how you stayed home and helped the next Robert Byrd get into office? Folks, be mad at the GOP if you don’t think they’re doing a good job. Call your senator, call your congressman and give ’em hell if they deserve it. But, when November rolls around, make sure to vote because there’s more on the line than you might think.

Tags: , , ,

4 Comments Posted on Conservatives, Republicans

feeding the beast

The defining premise usually used (in these days of tanking and now near-thirty-percent approval ratings) to disassociate the failures of Bush, the House, the Senate, all their advisors, all their supporters, and the cats they loved as children from so-called true conservatism is primarily that true fiscal/governmental conservatives suppose themselves to value “restrained federal power”, aka small government, which Bush allegedly does not. This, though, is a load of horsehockey. Fiscal and other conservatives may say that they value small government, but it is a fact of the movement that when in a position to actually implement those policies, they do not.

hunter at daily kos

it’s a fair point, i suppose, to dismiss the rhetoric used by politicians to get elected as not having much relationship to what they do after they settle into their nice new offices. it’s a rather common political game that everybody plays. this is not solely the domain of republicans or conservatives.

it is suggested, by some on the left, that the small-government conservatism that we get nostalgic for cannot exist as a permanent fixture in public policy. they see our philosophy on the role of goverment as “unsustainable” and see the current congressional republican failures as flaws of this kind of conservatism. this is an incomplete answer to the question, “what the heck is wrong with the republican party?” the left believes that this failure can be attributed to a lack of willingness by all of the true believers in conservatism to actually follow through with implementing their agenda. it’s not that simple.

here’s the truth of the matter: small government types are an endangered species in congress. not all conservatives, or for that matter, republicans, subscribe to that philosophy. that’s why we have such unchecked federal spending, and in addition to that, not much interest by the controlling party in making any changes in that area. the republicans may have the majority, but that doesn’t mean that conservatives of this stripe are controlling policy.

that’s certainly true of the man presently occupying the oval office. it doesn’t matter how many policy advisors he has that are sympathetic to the cause. there’s no “alleged” about bush 43 and opposition to the idea of shrinking government. george w. bush hasn’t proposed reducing government programs/dependence at any point in his presidential life, and that’s all on him. he has never been a small government guy. EVER. this wasn’t why we elected him. it was about the GWOT and appointing conservative judges to the supreme court, which he has done.

continuing from the kos post:

And that is not a unique phenomenon: it is a traceable pattern of the movement. They shuffle the tasks of government around, yes; they close so called “liberal” governmental tasks such as environmental protections and citizen welfare and safety programs, while hyper-boosting “conservative” governmental tasks such as defense spending and business-based “incentives” and other sops, and they outsource basic government tasks from government to for-profit industry without actually removing those tasks from the mandates (or budgets) of government, but post-Nixon conservatives have been remarkably consistent in their actual actions: increase spending; increase deficits; increase government; increase interference in citizen lives under banners of “religion” and “morality”. At no point in the modern-day movement have conservative adherents actually implemented this notion of small government or fiscal responsibility that they supposedly carry around with them as guiding force. It’s the label on the package, yes: but it’s not in the candy bar.

what most government regulations on business and industry lack is any sense of balance. either the scales are tipped in favor of business (which they generally seems to be right now) or they favor excessive environmental controls on essentials like gasoline. the results of those regulations usually have more of a financial impact on the average consumer than an environmental one.

let’s address this question of the difference in funding priorities between the republicans and the democrats. we consider national defense and military spending more important than saving the spotted owl. call us crazy. we also believe that the current welfare system is keeping people in poverty, not helping them achieve independence and to become successful, productive members of society. that’s why reform is absolutely necessary in this area. it would be a different thing entirely if all these social programs worked, but they don’t.

this is not at all meant to excuse the men and women abusing your tax dollars. if there is any turnover from government control to control by private industry, then it goes without saying that those items should be removed from the federal budget. shame on any member on congress who does not help to ensure that this happens. there is no defense for the reckless spending. there is also no defense for the trend toward increased government regulation or creating more ineffective bureaucracy.

there is no easy answer to fix this problem. if it were just a matter of replacing all those who agree with the status quo of feeding this government beast, then there would be more hope for real change in the system. we can’t just replace the people. we must reform the system that perpetuates big government, or nothing will ever change.

related:

Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity–david frum (cato)
Why Advocates Of Small Government Are Like A Certain Hockey-Mask-Wearing Serial Killer–john hawkins (rwn)

6 Comments Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush

could be a snow job

to those self-righteous preening political hacks at media matters: shut up. nobody cares what you think of tony snow, and this includes the president of the united states. i’ve seen what you consider shocking information about the future WH press secretary, and i’m still trying to find the incriminating stuff. tony snow has never hidden the fact that he worked for bush 41 or that he occasionally shows up on FNC. so what’s the big deal here?

tony snow is a man of integrity. he is an all-around nice guy, and he keeps the debate civil, even with those who have different views. how many other conservative talk show hosts can claim to have that kind of debate style? not too many, unfortunately. he is also more than qualified to be white house press secretary, and dubya would be a fool not to consider him for this position. it would also give conservatives actual representation in the vicinity of the white house, which they don’t seem to have right now.

i support the idea of tony snow becoming white house press secretary. he could handle the press, even david gregory. there’s no doubt in my mind that he would do an excellent job. i do think that the job he has now would be a hard job to give up. it’s possible that he is doing the administration more good with his radio show than he could possibly do as an official member of the team. i would miss hearing him on the radio every day, but when the white house comes calling, it would be silly not to consider the job offer. so whatever he decides, i wish him the best of luck either way.

there are a few other suggestions for white house press secretary here and here. good stuff. read and enjoy.

tags: