4 Comments Posted on Republicans

hypocrites and stone-throwers

It is the tendency of the media, and to some extent, the blogosphere, to breathlessly report on perceived hypocrisy by Republican politicians.  I suppose it’s better to have no moral boundaries at all in your personal life, so even though you may do immoral things, you will never be accused of hypocrisy by the press.  Because after all, there’s no higher authority to answer to than the ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate.  Those who honestly seek to honor their marriages and their families –by keeping the commitment they made to be faithful to their spouse and to keep their family a top priority– sometimes fail. Republicans fail. Democrats fail.  We are all prone to human weakness.

In Senator Craig’s case, I find it hard to spare any sympathy for him.  When a Senator plays the “Do you know who I am?” card and tries to use his office to get out of trouble, there’s no excuse for that. Senator Craig also didn’t help himself by trying to excuse his behavior instead of coming clean about it from the beginning.

I do feel sorry for his wife, and I can’t imagine what she must be going through right now. While I do think Craig should resign, I have a problem with those who want to score political points off of his humiliation.   It’s true that Republicans have always been the party promoting “family values”, and that we generally oppose same-sex marriage. (Of course, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also oppose same-sex marriage, but somehow that fact gets glossed over by the media with their prewritten narrative about the Republican party…) Maybe that’s why the members of the Republican party in Washington, DC are held to a higher standard than their Democratic counterparts.  I have no problem with this.

Unfortunately, many of these Republicans have fallen short of our expectations, and there’s no easy way to regain the trust that voters once placed in our party.   Sometimes apologies aren’t enough, because the damage is too deep.   If we want to win any elections in the future, we need to keep those high standards, and hold our fellow Republicans accountable for their actions. Then maybe we can regain the trust of the American people.

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.

 

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Random Musings

picks to click v.1

Courtesy of Real Clear Politics via Foreign Affairs mag:

Rudy Giuliani “Toward a Realistic Peace” vs. John Edwards “Reengaging with the World“.

Whatever you may think of Rudy as a presidential candidate, you certainly can’t say that he hasn’t thought much about the next steps in our foreign policy and the war against terrorists. His knowledge and understanding of that subject is what’s keeping him in the top tier. That’s the only reason social conservatives are willing to accept a socially liberal candidate, and why everyone else is so willing to excuse Giuliani for his previous views on illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities. Speaking of Giuliani, there is a mammoth profile of him in The New Yorker, which is definitely worth the time it takes to read if you are considering supporting Giuliani to win the nomination.

Earmarks are still with us. Heck of a job, Democrats.

Rove resigns. The amazing part is that Rasmussen actually found that 25% of the Democrats he polled liked Karl Rove. That can’t be possible, can it? I think the legacy of Karl Rove will be that he was better at winning elections than he was at helping Dubya getting his agenda through Congress — and that the genius label was somewhat undeserved.

Also, from Cao’s blog, Kender says: “I Think I Shall Become A Socialist“. And the Dems will take care of me….LOL.

If that’s not enough links for you, just go read IMAO. There’s always something funny to read there. Just scroll down a few posts.

More serious analysis and debate will return soon after I finish this book. Until then talk among yourselves. 😉

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Random Musings, Republicans

thoughts on ames: part 2

People of faith, and Christians in particular, need to get out of the political king-making business. We have more important things we need to be worrying about than who wins elections. We condemn elitists. We say that politicians are out of touch with our values. And you know what? We are absolutely right to be doing that. But we cannot, and we should not, be telling people to vote for or against a candidate because of the level of their belief or non-belief in God. With all the flaws in the Democratic strategy over the years, I don’t recall them ever fighting about which candidate is more religious, and basing their support on who appears to love God the most. It’s a stupid argument that we are having here, and we need to recognize that the more important characteristic than a person’s religion is how competently that person can run the US government and how aggressive she/he is in protecting this country from foreign enemies, both terrorists and rogue regimes seeking nukes. If we can find someone as a Republican nominee who will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court in addition to that, that would be a bonus.

We have to ask ourselves how aggressive we want the federal government to be as advocates for a social conservative agenda. Do we really want government programs to push an agenda that would be better carried out in the private sector with non-profits and charities rather than adding another appendage to the government monolith? I would like a candidate who is a social conservative and who shares my values, but I would have to think about whether I want the government to be funding religious activity. The reason for that is that what government funds, it will eventually control. I don’t want the government to have any control over religious organizations at all. So keep funding of faith-based organizations in the private sector where it belongs.

Many of the social conservatives running for president seem to want to have an activist government on social policy. Is that really what we want? Here’s something else to consider. Is it the government’s job to provide free health care to all Americans? Is it the government’s job to ensure that people can afford a house? Is it the government’s job to make sure that you have a job?

No. It is not.

If we say that we are for limited government, and we actually mean it, then this should mean that the candidate we nominate should be more interested in protecting our country than protecting our faith. That’s what churches are for. That’s what our pastors are for. That’s the role of our families. That’s not the role of our government.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Random Musings, Republicans

random thoughts on ames: part 1

Ron Paul sounds more like he’s lecturing the country than he’s motivating the country.  Some of his good ideas get lost in the bizarre presentation. The problem is that the hard truths don’t usually come from the candidates who can win.  Activists don’t usually win elections as candidates.  Ron Paul sounds like an activist, as does the other unknown candidate, John Cox.  Ron Paul says America is becoming a tyranny.  There’s a difference between being a realist and being a scare-monger.  Ron Paul sounds a lot like Kucinich in his views on trade.  The Paulites are kind of scary.  I agree with Paul and Neil Boortz that we are becoming less free due to increased government bureaucracy. There’s a logical argument that we should focus more on the problems we face domestically than on foreign policy.  What sympathizers of Ron Paul’s seem not to understand is that we need a muscular foreign policy to allow us to stay free and prosperous, and to live the life that we are used to as Americans.

I love Mike Huckabee’s speech, even though he did rip off Newt’s Fed-Ex analogy on illegal immigration.  It’s more pep talk than lecture, and filled with enough one-liners to pack any campaign article.  He is missing his true calling – motivational speaker.  The audience absolutely loved him, and I hope that he sticks around until the end and shows well in Iowa today.  I don’t know why those who are supporting Huckabee are not concerned that he might be one of those “compassionate conservatives” who show compassion by the way they allocate money to federal programs and bureaucracy.  With all of Bush’s strengths, he has been weak on controlling spending.  If you are a person who is serious about that issue, Huckabee might not be your guy.  On the other hand, I’m not sure any of the top three are committed to reducing government spending either. Rudy is probably the most likely to do that, but do we really know for sure?  I don’t think we have that kind of candidate.

It’s a shame that Duncan Hunter hasn’t gotten more traction.  For conservatives, he’s the closest we have to everything we want.  He is a social conservative, and he’s strong on defense issues, including border security.  I’m not sure why his speech is focusing so much on trade and China.  The applause by the audience seems to be even for just about every candidate.  It’s hard to predict the results of the Iowa straw poll based on audience applause.  His best moments in this speech are when he talks about his area of expertise: border security.  Duncan Hunter ends with a shout-out to the military.  Always a quality option in Republican-friendly towns.

I missed Romney’s speech, but I’m sure there was nothing in it I hadn’t heard before.

Romney may win, as everyone is predicting, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a few surprises coming out of this straw poll.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election

attack dogs?

Chuck Todd has suggested that Chris Dodd and Joe Biden were auditioning for a new role last night, when they took a few swings at Barack Obama over his statements on Pakistan – Hillary’s attack dogs. As if she needed them. A more likely possibility is that they were acting out of self-preservation rather than any ambition to be a part of a future Clinton administration. The time has come for those not named Clinton or Obama to make their move and to try to get some blows in to knock down the top two candidates. That’s not to suggest that Dodd or Biden didn’t have it right when they criticized Obama on Pakistan, however…

Good thing that this was only a candidate forum. If this was an actual debate, it would have to be considered one of the most unfocused, disorganized debates we have seen so far. Keith Olbermann was unable to control what was happening on the stage, but in some cases, this was a good thing. If he had tight control over this forum, we might not have gotten the exchange between Dodd, Clinton and Obama. Dodd and Clinton argued that going into Pakistan would destablize the regime of Pakistan President Musharraf. Even though I’m sympathetic to Obama’s call to go in and get Osama bin Laden if we have the “actionable intelligence” needed to know for sure where he is, this is not the right time to discuss that possibility. Musharraf is struggling to keep control of Pakistan, to stay alive even, so even if he’s not the best guy to spread democracy, if he is overthrown, the resulting government will be much worse.

Pakistan appears to disapprove of Obama’s grand plan .”It’s a very irresponsible statement, that’s all I can say,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.” I don’t think Obama will get away with making the argument that since the other senators voted for the war in Iraq, they don’t have the ability to question his Pakistan strategy. Does anyone actually believe that Obama would go into Pakistan with our military to take out Bin Laden? I doubt that he would.

Tags: , ,

Posted on Baseball, Random Musings

755

Barry Bonds finally tied Hank Aaron’s home run record, and soon he will break that record and hit number 756. We all have our opinions about whether this record was attained honestly or not, but I think it’s safe to say that the court of public opinion has already convicted Bonds of steroid use. This isn’t meant to be a defense of Barry Bonds. I think he cheated. Most of us think he cheated. My problem is with how MLB commissioner Bud Selig has handled this whole difficult situation. Selig also believes Bonds took steroids, but he’s the only one who’s not being honest about it. He released a statement after the game congratulating Bonds on 755, and saying that a representative would be at the next few games, adding this: “all citizens in this country are innocent until proven guilty.” Uh huh.

If the commissioner of baseball really believed that, he would have stood up and at least politely clapped when Bonds tied the record. I understand the inclination not to applaud, or even to boo Barry because of what we think he did. We are fans of the game, not representatives of the game. Bud Selig represents the game. He doesn’t have that luxury. I get that Selig and Hank Aaron are best friends. But if he’s going to attend the game, he has to do more than just show up. Nobody expects huge official MLB banners or anything similar to it. I’m not suggesting that baseball should throw a big party for Bonds, but the record needs to be respected even if the man is not. MLB didn’t care enough to deal with the steroid issue when it could have made a difference, so it should share some responsibility for both the positive and negative effects of allowing steroids to infect the game of baseball.

It would also be helpful if Selig would quit complaining about how tough following Barry around is.  It’s a joke, and a bad joke.  What exactly does he do all day that he can’t be bothered to attend a few baseball games? Please.  Suck it up, Mr. Commish. Stop being petty.  Thank you.

Tags: , ,

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 →