Republicans

Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush

president bush: hardcore neo-con.

now playing: pyro sets a wildfire/swirling eddies

is president bush a conservative? the answer is: it depends on how that word is defined. there’s a fairly strong case to be made that he is extremely conservative on social issues of importance to groups generally thought to be deeply connected with “the religious right”. two of his three supreme court nominations would suggest this. the fact that the president is a Christian is also a strong indication in this direction. i would say that in this respect, he is conservative. but does he follow the rules of what i would consider to be traditional (small-government) conservatism in policy decisions? the evidence would suggest otherwise.

from the weekly standard (11/14):

“THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. Bush has three years yet to run, but this season of scandal and disillusionment is an opportune moment for conservatives to start thinking seriously about the post-Bush era–and particularly how to fashion a domestic policy from the wreckage of Bush-style, big-government conservatism. Thanks to the abiding weakness of the Democratic party, Republicans haven’t yet paid a political price for insider-friendly appropriation bills, Medicare boondoggles, or the smog of semi-corruption rising from the party’s cozy relationship with KStreet. But even if the GOP’s majority survives the next election cycle, conservatives shouldn’t kid themselves: President Bush’s domestic policy looks less and less like a visionary twist on traditional conservatism, and more and more like an evolutionary dead end. “

read it here. the authors make some interesting suggestions for needed reforms in the status quo that the republicans would be wise to adopt for their own campaigns in 2006. reagan famously said that government is not the solution to the problem, that in fact government IS the problem…or something similar to that anyway. both liberals and conservatives are wrong when they consider making government the primary curative to what ails the country. the difference here is only in what kind of programs each side considers worthy of government largesse. the president isn’t re-inventing the wheel with his approach to spending and tax cuts. we have seen this act before, by more obvious culprits. president bush deserves much blame for any failures of his fiscal policy. but the democrats, who are so anxious to take the president to task on his foreign policy decisions, remain relatively silent on spending. why is that, do you suppose? the answer is because the democrats, and to some degree, the republicans, are complicit in the bad economic policy. both sides can’t say no to new spending and insist on some fiscal discipline, and somehow this is all the president’s fault.

fred barnes defines what he considers to be A ‘Big Government Conservatism’:

Big government conservatives prefer to be in favor of things because that puts them on the political offensive. Promoting spending cuts/minimalist government doesn’t do that. Mr. Bush has famously defined himself as a compassionate conservative with a positive agenda. Almost by definition, this makes him a big government conservative.

big government conservatism, as defined by barnes, is activist by nature. it may have more noble underlying objectives than the government activism suggested by liberals or moderates (although i suppose that is an open question), but the premise is still flawed. president bush is not as uncomfortable with using the power of the government to advance what he considers to be conservative ideas and values as he should be. using the government to bring about social equity or attempting to level the playing field for all americans in this way is an iffy proposition under any ideological banner.

take a look at the programs and proposals by the president during his first and second terms in office. it is the very essence of logic itself to believe that this president is not from the limited-government wing of the conservatives. he is very much all neo-con, and this has only a peripheral relationship to the war in iraq, although that’s part of it. dare i suggest bush 43 is in fact a slightly more conservative version of bush 41? (the difference of course being that bush 41 raised taxes after promising not to…and there’s that whole leaving saddam in power thing…) finally someone comes up with a logical definition for a neo-con…and apparently it doesn’t just mean republican war hawk.

Anti-Freedom Conservatism–from the future of freedom daily

So there you have it. Big-government conservatism, or its synonym, neoconservatism, stands for a powerful state in pursuit of “conservative ends.” There are problems, to be sure, with the Barnes-Kristol thesis. What are “conservative ends”? An older school of conservatism (which actually consisted of near-libertarians) would have said that chief among those ends was individual freedom achieved by restraining government power. But if that’s so, it makes no sense to talk about using government to achieve those ends. They also understood that a government with interests not bound by geography is in fact an empire, not a constitutionally limited republic. Thus, big-government conservatism is either incoherent or a cynical attempt to appropriate a cozy-sounding label.

What about the moral case for self-ownership and against coercion? We never hear this issue raised by the neocons. They sometimes talk about intrusive government. But your meddling neighbor can also be said to be intrusive. The fundamental issue is the initiation of physical force. “Transfers” are, in Bastiat’s words, “legal plunder.” The advocates of big government either don’t recognize that plunder is at the heart of the state. Or they don’t care.

this sounds more like what i believe and far from bush’s view(except for the part about taxes):

“Fundamentally, compassionate conservatism is a form of political conservatism. In other words, compassionate conservatives believe that government should have a limited role in people’s lives and that competition in the marketplace is the most effective means of producing social and economic progress. Consequently, compassionate conservatives believe in low taxes, limited government regulation, and the vast power of the free enterprise system.”

and:

“Big-government, one-size-fits-all solutions demean struggling individuals by treating them merely as members of aggrieved identity groups, passively awaiting government subsidies and restitution for crippling wounds inflicted by what is perceived to be an inherently unjust society.”

that’s the best argument against neo-conservatism in my view. it creates too many illegitimate victims. we do have a moral and ethical responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves, but i would argue that this category has been massively expanded to include more people that it should. the government has taken on more responsibility for attempting to cure social injustices than it can effectively handle. p.j. o’rourke, the official muse of this here blog once said: “A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.” he is a smart man. the president should take his advice.

somewhat related:

Can’t last–Jan 8th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Republicans

house G.O.P. to dems on iraq : put up or shut up!

this all started with a statement made by rep. john murtha to reporters on thursday. this is part of what he said:

“I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted — this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times — over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free — free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you’re not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation — a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they — or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they’re worried about their families.

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.”

it was a direct call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from iraq. that’s a bold move, no matter what you may think of that proposed strategy. although i think that murtha’s war hawk reputation is overstated, he’s not advocating the exact same strategy as michael moore. it would be convenient for us to characterize him that way. it would also be wrong, scott mcclellan. even though mcclellan tried to make the case that it was only murtha’s argument that was being discredited, not the man himself, i don’t think he managed to sell that to anyone still listening to him.

some of what rep. murtha said made sense, at least in the previous excerpt. he’s not a raving moonbat like michael moore. i do have a serious problem with immediate withdrawal of the troops from iraq, whether that means tomorrow, or six weeks from now. the administration has made what i believe, and many others believe, to be a strong case against this approach. iraq will be left worse than we found it, should we decide to leave iraq before it can defend itself. i would also like to question this assertion by rep. murtha in the full text of his remarks to the press on thursday: “ I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agrees now that Iraq cannot be won militarily. ” i’m not buying this argument. at least in the public statements by current members of the administration and the military now in iraq, i just don’t see the general consensus for this POV in either group. there are improvements we need to make in our approach to post-war iraq. i don’t dispute that. i also think that our successes there have been woefully under-reported.

so the house republicans decided to take a vote on the immediate withdrawal of troops from iraq, to make the democrats go on the record on how they felt about what murtha was suggesting in his comments to the press. i like this move. did it smack of a political stunt? yes. but it accomplished something very useful, in spite of the partisan sniping that took place in the pre-vote debates on the house floor. all but three democrats voted against immediate withdrawal, which should have been expected and probably was. this was a turning point in the whole argument over the war in iraq. i think this because now that the house has decisively rejected immediate withdrawal, we can now move on to the question of what more we need to be doing to help the iraqis run their own country.

i believe that murtha’s broader point is correct– that we need to give the iraqis an incentive to kick us out of their country. while timetables for withdrawal are misguided, we do need to emphasize to them that we will be leaving, and that they will need to secure their own country. the two previous elections and the new constitution are very positive signs that the political process is starting to work. i’m sure that there are other major positive developments there that we don’t know about. there is more work yet to do, and the administration should let us know about the progress that’s being made to address rep. murtha’s concerns and those of the american people. i hope they will.

oh yeah…and ohio state beat michigan. WOOHOO! thoughts on that in the previous post. scroll down for more on that.

hosting some of sunday’s open trackbacks: cao’s blog, adam’s blog, basil’s blog, california conservative, and my vast right wing conspiracy.

Posted on Conservatives, Democracy

all politics is local (attn: SC residents)

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

~JFK~

this is the fight we need to have. i believe that so often most of us, especially conservatives, have gotten frustrated by the political process, and some have even stopped believing that someone who truly represents our values can actually be elected to serve in D.C. i was one of those people once. it’s discouraging what has happened to honest debate over ideas and ideology in this country, and how it often ends up in name-calling and partisan feuding. that’s got to change. conservatives can win the battle of ideas, and we can start one candidate at a time.

fellow conservative readers/bloggers in SC, this is your opportunity to jump into the process and to get actively involved in supporting a candidate that more accurately represents what we believe than those currently in congress. that’s why i’m asking you to support park gillespie, the other republican candidate for SC’s 5th district. he will have a tough battle ahead, but i believe with the support of all of us, he can be the representative that we thought we were electing to the white house. i will be posting further info here once the website officially launches. in the meantime, google is your friend. 🙂

the battle of ideas will be joined in SC’s 5th district. will you be a part of the debate? we cannot sit on the sidelines. it’s time to get involved.

current discussions of the french riots continue below.

by the way… (because i never bury the lead) in case you avoided watching alias, vaughn’s still dead.

previous:

Technorati : , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Republicans

SCOTUS confirmation hearings and democratic hypocrisy

let’s talk about some history here. throughout the whole history of the supreme court’s nomination and confirmation process, the battles over proposed nominees drew no blood and took no captives. this continued through the confirmation hearings of justices ginsburg, breyer, and o’connor. source material for the following history comes from here. (also linked below)

what happened in ginsburg’s hearings has set a precedent for the confirmation hearings of both chief justice roberts and future associate justice alito by restricting the amount of information that nominees will reveal in their confirmation hearings. (don’t expect this to change any time soon…) justice ginsburg was president clinton’s pick for the court in march of ’93. some of the senate republicans such as william cohen of maine did have some ideological concerns with her. here’s the test cohen applied to her nomination, courtesy of HNN. “…Cohen suggested during the hearings that judicial ideology should be used only to determine if the nominee’s philosophy is ‘so extreme that it might call into question the usual confirmation prerequisites of competency and judicial temperament.'”

that’s really the important question the senators should be asking about all potential SCOTUS nominees. is the nominee qualified to sit on the court? another question would be: does he/she have the judicial temperament to apply the law impartially in all cases they may hear on the court, regardless of their ideology? that’s the kind of justice who should be on the court, and i believe that based on his past history and judicial record, judge alito can be this kind of justice.

apparently, cohen and the other republicans found that justice ginsburg’s nomination passed that test. even though she answered a limited number of questions about ideology, this didn’t seem to bother the republicans all that much. she was confirmed by the senate by a vote of 96-3 (with Sen. Hatch being one of the opposing votes) even though the republicans absolutely knew what they were voting for. so much for republican obstructionism in that hearing.

justice breyer is another good example. the republicans, for all intents and purposes, also allowed this justice to be confirmed without much of a fight. they had some concerns about him too, including a lack of commitment to private property rights, his opposition to prayer in public schools and at public schools’ graduation ceremonies, not to mention a possible conflict of interest involving lloyd’s of london investments. even under that long list of concerns, he managed to garner only 9 opposition votes.

then there is o’connor herself. she also had no problem getting confirmed to the court. the vote was 99-0…no significant opposition to her nomination was present in the final vote. even though it was pretty clear what her views were on certain issues, it didn’t keep her from sitting on the supreme court. it’s interesting to note that at the conclusion of her tenure on the court, the following comments were made about her.

from the WaPo:

“We have a living Constitution. Her name is Sandra Day O’Connor, and thank God she’s retiring,” Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson, founder and president of the conservative Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said yesterday.

“Her support for separation of church and state was not consistent,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

here you have the predictable conservative response to o’connor and the supreme court rulings she made. may i just take issue with fellow conservatives here for complaining after the fact here? a good time to make an issue out of it would have been before she was confirmed, not after. but i digress…

so barry lynn wasn’t happy with o’connor either. i’m not sure exactly what kind of justice he would ever be totally pleased with. if he wasn’t pleased with john roberts, it’s not hard to predict what he would say about judge alito. in general, i tend to support anybody opposed by barry lynn, just on principle. but i think there are some good arguments to be made for judge alito. it may be true that he shares many of my beliefs and values, but i also believe based on his past rulings that he would apply the law based on precedent and not on ideology.here’s the point. if ideology didn’t keep ginsburg, breyer, and o’connor from being confirmed by the senate, the standard shouldn’t have changed for chief justice roberts or judge alito.

why is it only acceptable to confirm justices who mirror the views of the democrats, regardless of the nominee’s experience or qualifications? if that’s not what the democrats are arguing, perhaps they need to be more clear about what kind of justice they would accept. it doesn’t appear that they would accept someone with a strict interpretation of the constitution under any circumstances, so all this distress and disappointment with the Bush pick doesn’t mean a heck of a lot. they knew what was going to happen, and they will oppose the president in this, just the way they have been doing throughout his presidency.

if there are valid concerns about judge alito’s record, let’s put them on the table. i have no problem with examination of his record and past rulings to try to determine how he might rule on the court. that’s a fair critique to make. if there are logical reasons why judge alito wouldn’t be qualified enough or competent enough to sit on the court, then that’s a legitimate argument not to confirm him. otherwise, the senate should do what they have done in the past and judge ideology in the context of cohen’s test. if justices ginsburg, breyer, and o’connor could pass it, there shouldn’t be any problem with judge alito.

michelle malkin has more specifics on alito here.

Technorati : , , , , ,

Posted on Democracy, Republicans

it’s time to shed the woe-is-me attitude.

“Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it…”

“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?”

“The only obligation I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”

“There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.”

–henry david thoreau, from civil disobedience

my hero. for too long, we have resigned ourselves to a government structure that encourages corruption and wasteful spending. this criticism is not restricted to a single political party. the current system is broken, and it’s up to us to demand changes in that system. i believe that the american people are starting to realize that change is possible, and that we can play a part in the implementation of that change.

why is it that so many people in this country have disconnected from the political process? it is because they have become disillusioned with politicians who make and break big promises to them. it is because they can’t see the difference between republicans and democrats right now. it is also because they have become convinced that there is nothing they can do to change the system. so they give up and vote for the lesser of two evils, for a third party, or for nobody at all.

it’s time to shed the woe-is-me attitude. a democracy such as ours is crippled unless everyone plays a part in its growth and continued evolution. if you don’t like what’s going on in washington, speak up. if you’re tired of excessive government spending and useless regulations on everything, stomp your feet and make some noise (and talk to your congressmen and senators while you are at it). we must demand accountability from our elected officials and hold their feet to the fire on promises they made — but only if they are good policy for the country.

active participation means that we stay engaged in the political process. being an informed voter is important. being an informed citizen and agent of accountability for elected officials is more important. if we do not want our country to be ruled by the whims of small numbers of connected political irritants, we must not stay silent. speak up. there’s no better time than now.

to those already in d.c., we ask you to care more about what we want and need. we require that you ask us, and honestly listen to the answer. if you cannot in good conscience serve us in good faith, then we will support someone else to replace you. that’s a threat, not a promise. think about it. then do the right thing.

Technorati :

Posted on Conservatives

bowties and the alleged link to the VRWC

just as some of us would make negative judgments about tongue rings and tattoos, there are those who would go nuts over a simple knotted piece of fabric. what does this craziness come from? i really can’t say. bowties are not a pre-requisite to join the VRWC. kim jong il wears ’em. no one ever accused him of right-wing conservatism. the argument for the other side is quite convincing, however — when you include george will, winston churchill, and the son of chief justice nominee john roberts as representatives of that side.

there’s more to this than dislike for the bowtie in tucker carlson’s case. i believe that both liberals and conservatives are wrong about him. liberals lose their minds when discussing tucker, but i really don’t think they have him figured out. conservatives don’t either, and this annoys them. conservatives generally gravitate toward the predictable…and that’s the last word that would describe tucker’s views on anything.

that’s precisely why I love him. he is irrepressible, unpredictable, and totally contrarian. it also should be noted that he has great hair. i may be the only tucker carlson apologist in the entire blogosphere that doesn’t write creepy fan fic about him. to those people…just stop it.

Technorati : ,

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Hurricane Katrina, Republicans

the president’s speech and the needed revolution

there are those who saw the president’s speech as an air-kiss to the liberal solution of throwing money at problems to cure them. i don’t think this is entirely incorrect. i think that the president will be better off when he realizes that some groups of people are never going to like him. trying to appease the kanye wests, the al sharptons, and the farrikans of the world is misguided and a waste of time. african-americans died in new orleans not because of racism, but because of mismanagement on all levels of government. we saw a lot of video with african-americans as victims of katrina. why was that? it was because there were a disproportionate number of them in that area. racism in this case was a myth and the president should have called out the race-baiters last night. he missed that opportunity.

one opportunity the president and our elected leaders should not miss is the opportunity to explode the concept of the welfare state. its flaws are obvious and glaring in new orleans. we need to encourage people to take personal responsibility for their own future by allowing them to be part of creating something they can take pride in. just re-creating new orleans the way it was before doesn’t fix the problem. we don’t want to keep people struggling and on welfare. if my tax money is going toward this reconstruction, then i want some accountability on where it’s going. we should all demand this.

also, repealing the pork projects in existing bills should be done immediately. we should bring the pressure to bear on our elected officials to do this. this country belongs to us, and it’s about time washington acknowledged this and listened to us for once.

Technorati : , ,

Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush, Republicans

the deconstruction of john roberts (part II)

people for the american way lists some conservative supporters. these groups generally do their homework on nominees, because abortion is an important issue to them. ann coulter disagrees with their endorsement. i generally don’t pay much attention to ann, but she makes a valid point about wanting to know more about john roberts.

the republicans have the majority and we have a president with the ability to elect a strong conservative to the court. we should be taking more advantage of being the party in power, instead of kow-towing to the democrats. this also goes for advocacy of conservative policies and programs. why are we so afraid to stand up for what we believe in? why are we considering candidates for ’08 who bear no resemblance to the reformers in the gingrich revolution?

this drives me nuts. i have yet to see an ’08 republican presidential contender committed to the issues that we believe in as strong conservatives. i mentioned gingrich before. newt’s a smart guy, with a lot of baggage. that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have good ideas on how to move this country in the right direction.

the problem with our hard-core conservatives right now is that they have recently done or said stupid things that have gotten them bad press. hopefully they can repair their images before they try to run for president. that’s the kind of president we need in the future — a proponent of all conservative values. we elected reagan, didn’t we? so it can be done. the future of our country is at stake.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.” –Dante

previous:

the deconstruction of john roberts (part I)

Technorati : , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

another idea for the ’08 election

republicans are sometimes devoid of imagination and occasionally democrats are too — so i have decided to help them think outside the box for once. forget giuliani, frist, santorum, or all those other pretenders. this ticket is guaranteed to generate a buzz around the country. i’m talking about those great americans and genuinely good guys…ben stein and tucker carlson. think about it.

why ben stein?

  • he understands economics as well as greenspan
  • he is the smartest man in america.
  • fiscal and social conservative
  • great public speaker unlike president bush
  • he could finally dump that chauvinistic pig idiot jimmy kimmel.

why not?

  • he’s too smart to run
  • he would have less time to entertain the country

why tucker carlson?

  • the bowties — parents trust bowties and a lot of parents vote
  • would not be above playing a musical instrument on MTV to attract the important 18-29 demographic
  • he gets along with liberals too
  • would absolutely steal the conservative chick vote

why not?

  • he would need more bowties.
  • no more “cutting room floor” segments
  • no more willie geist
  • no more “situation”
  • less time to spend learning about brad, jen, and paris hilton

let’s not restrict ourselves to the party anointed ones and do something different for once — stein/carlson ’08!

Technorati : , , ,