Posted on '08 Election

the madness of 2008

Consider this an open letter to all alternative potential presidential candidates (except FRED).  I’m talking to you,  Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, Michael Bloomberg, Ralph Nader, and any other long shot candidate I forgot about.

Get in or stay out. Make a decision and stop wasting our time with your stupid ego-driven flirtation with the WH. You are not going to win, and you don’t have anything new to add to the debate.  We have more than enough candidates to be unhappy about, and your entry into the race won’t do anything to change that. Do the honorable thing and support the candidates who have put in the time and effort to gain our support.

Thank you.

Tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, Republicans

this is not a surprise

So much for “openness and transparency” in the new Democratic-controlled Congress for those earmark requests.

CNN informs us:

Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.

Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn’t respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn’t.

“As long as we are not required to release them, we’re not going to,” said Dan Turner, an aide to Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Louisiana.

Shouldn’t the Democrats be setting the example by releasing each and every one of their earmark requests and requiring the release of all earmark requests? This is, of course, a bipartisan effort to withhold disclosure of how members of Congress want to waste our money. Republicans are guilty of this as well as Democrats, but the Democrats are in charge now. Seems to me that no significant change will happen if they keep enabling the status quo to protect themselves.

Tags: , ,

3 Comments Posted on Democracy, Editorials

rethinking the stability strategy

Was John Edwards right about the war on terrorism being a bumper-sticker slogan? To the extent that this statement trivializes the threat we face from Islamic extremists, absolutely not. I wonder, however, if in the desire to achieve stability in the Middle East we have unwisely propped up dictators and terrorist sympathizers, to achieve the stability we want to have there without taking the risk of transformational change that the promotion of human rights and freedom would produce in a society. It is fair to ask if the United States government really believes the foreign policy philosophy introduced by Bush 43, or whether we are serious about supporting those in other countries who are struggling to make a break from oppressive government control of their lives.

I was reading a Washington Post story about the problems Musharraf is having in Pakistan right now, and one line just stuck out in the opening grafs: “To the Bush White House, the war on terrorism tops everything, including democracy.” Is President Bush resigned to the idea that stability is more important than democracy? Some of the moves he has made would appear to suggest this, such as supporting a dictator like Musharraf, and it’s understandable that at this point in his political life, he’s looking for a quick fix to Iraq and to the Middle East. The President knows what needs to happen (the promotion of free societies), but he doesn’t know how to accompany that with consistent policies in holding countries accountable for human rights violations in exchange for financial and political support from the United States.

We say all the right things about freedom and democracy, and wanting to encourage opposition to dictatorships and Islamic theocracies, but maybe we could be doing more policy-wise to support those who oppose these type of governments. I’m not talking about American-led regime change in Iran or North Korea. What I’m talking about is finding ways to bring some accountability to oppressive regimes by withholding foreign aid and making all support conditional on verifiable improvement in the lives of the people under those governments. The problem that the US has in doing this is the international community and (with only a few exceptions) their tendency toward appeasement, the quick fix, and their application of a few Band-Aids on this serious flesh wound.

Continue reading →

2 Comments Posted on George W. Bush, Illegal Immigration

i agree

Rich Lowry on the immigration deal:

It might be the fate of President Bush to be remembered as the emblem of an Age of Cynicism, when — despite many encouraging economic and social indicators — we experienced a deep public funk, driven by the feeling that government couldn’t be trusted to do anything, at least not well.

This is the spirit that more than anything else brought down (for now) the Senate’s Grand Compromise on immigration. It wasn’t Bush’s declining clout or raging xenophobia so much as the collective grassroots reply to the White House’s detailed explications of the enforcement provisions in the bill: “We simply don’t believe you.”

His administration had made no appreciable attempt to enforce immigration laws until recently. A government can’t ignore its own laws without creating deep suspicions about its motives. Then there was the question of capability. At the same time the administration was maintaining it could process at least 12 million illegal immigrants into a complex path to citizenship, it couldn’t even manage to issue passports in a timely manner when new regulations passed in 2004 came into effect.

It’s just that simple — if we are not enforcing current laws, why should we believe that any new laws would be enforced? There were some tough measures in the immigration bill that we could point to and admit that they were a step in the right direction. But words without action mean nothing. That’s what we are seeing from the Senate and the White House. They say that we are all wrong and that all these triggers will ensure that nobody gets amnesty (whatever the current definition of that word is). I don’t really see how that Z-visa amounts to anything else, when it can be renewed indefinitely.

Let’s assume for a minute that they were serious about enforcing the new laws. Even with the 10-12 million illegals already here, we don’t have the resources to do anything about those people. Yet we want to dump millions more on another overworked and overstretched bureaucracy. This makes absolutely no sense to me. We don’t have to deport them all, but we have to start somewhere. The madness must stop, and Congress can begin winning our trust back by sending up an enforcement-only bill first. Otherwise, we will remain skeptical of the need for the kind of comprehensive immigration reform the President and his Senate accomplices want to sell us.

Posted on Editorials, Illegal Immigration, Republicans

mostly dead

Thanks to the conservatives who cared enough to tell the Republican minority how they felt about this immigration bill (and thanks also to the non-clueless senator from SC), the Republicans summoned enough votes to kill this bill. This battle is over for now, but we have to keep our eyes open, because this won’t be the end of proposals like this. John McCain is lucky to have such a loyal friend in Lindsey Graham, but they are both going down with this ship. It’s difficult to be angry with someone who votes on principle, even if they have a position totally different than yours.  However, it is never smart to vote in opposition to a large majority of your constituents (as Graham did) and expect anything good to come of that.  Like I said before, Lindsey Graham is a reliable conservative vote on most of the issues that are important to South Carolinians. But the way he and some of his colleagues have handled criticism on this legislation is unacceptable, and we really need to think about whether he deserves our continued support.

The incredible arrogance of the President of the United States, Trent Lott, John McCain, and others supporting this comprehensive immigration bill is stunning. It shouldn’t be.  We shouldn’t need any more proof that the Republican leadership doesn’t care what we think most of the time, and it takes a massive effort on our part to get them to pay attention. In a way, this is a good thing, because we need to care more about where Congress is taking our country. 

This is not about wanting to deport 11,12 million illegals.  Everyone knows this is impossible. What we can do right now is enforce current laws and finish that border fence. If there is a proven continuing commitment to border enforcement, then maybe we can talk about guest worker programs — but there is no reason to believe that the federal government or Congress has any intention to secure our borders.

There is a huge disconnect between D.C. elitists and the conservative base in the Republican party, which was highlighted by this struggle over immigration. They have decided that they know what’s best for all of us, and if we don’t agree with them, we must be uninformed. If they keep up this arrogant attitude, they shouldn’t expect our money, our support, or our votes.  But they don’t need us, right?

 

3 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

questions and answers

This was one of the questions posed to the Republican presidential candidates Tuesday night:

We’ve lost 3,400 troops; civilian casualties are even higher, and the Iraqi government does not appear ready to provide for the security of its own country. Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?

(That’s not a loaded question is it?)

ROMNEY:

Well, I answered the question by saying it’s a — it’s a non sequitur, it’s a null set kind of question, because you can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn’t be having this — this discussion. So it’s a hypothetical that I think is an unreasonable hypothetical. And the answer is, we did what we did; we did the right thing based on what we knew at that time. I think we made mistakes following the conduct — or the collapse of Saddam’s government.

GIULIANI:

Absolutely the right thing to do. It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

The problem the Democrats make is they’re in denial. That’s why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn’t dangerous; it’s 10 years away from nuclear weapons. Iran is not 10 years away from nuclear weapons, and the danger to us is not just missiles, the danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists, so it has to be seen in that light, and we have to be successful in Iraq.

Just for fun…let’s look at what FRED! said about that question when Hannity interviewed him post-debate. His question was slightly different (whether we did the right thing invading Iraq).
THOMPSON:

Yes. Sean, what people don’t think enough about is what — if we had not gone into Iraq. You know, after defying the United Nations 17 times, after corrupting the oil-for-food program and the United Nations itself, Saddam would have been there — and defying the United States, of course — Saddam would have been there, the new king of the hill in that part of the world, with his murderous sons still putting people in human shredders, still a threat to his neighbors, still developing his plans for a nuclear capability.I mean, he had those plans. He had the technical expertise. Whether he had them on one particular day or not is almost irrelevant. Especially today, looking at what Iran is doing, he certainly would have had his hands or been working assiduously toward getting the capability of nuclear weapons. And that’s what we would have been faced with had we not done that. Going in there and deposing him was a good thing.

In some ways, it’s unfair to compare CEO Mitt to “America’s Mayor” or to Fred Thompson. They all know the right answer to the question, and all three have demonstrated that they get the war on terror. But in this one answer at least, Rudy and Fred get to the point faster. Romney may have all the right answers and he may be dynamite with a PowerPoint presentation, but that’s only a small part of what we are looking for in a nominee. Both Rudy and McCain personally connected with the audience Tuesday, and that’s the element Romney seems to be missing. As others have said, Romney was off his game in this third debate. Rudy won this third debate because he showed command of all the topics he was asked about, and in every debate performance, he keeps looking stronger and stronger (as long as the questions are not focused on those troublesome social issues)

Continue reading →

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats

sparring democrats in new hampshire

Just a few random, possibly unrelated thoughts on the Democratic debate Sunday night (transcript here):

1) It is logically inconsistent for Hillary and Edwards to insist that they were “totally briefed” on what was in the NIE and got quality advice on what to do with that information, while still trying to make the case that Bush gave them bad information.

2) Hillary and Barack deserve credit for admitting that there are a few things that President Bush has done right on terrorism, but they still say what the leftwing base wants to hear — Bush screwed up Iraq, Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror.

3) John Edwards can hammer Clinton and Obama all he wants to about their perceived reluctance to vote against the war funding bill. But the bottom line is that they had to make a decision about it, and cast a vote, and they ultimately did what they thought they had to do. Do we really know that John Edwards would have voted against that war funding? Maybe if he had to vote on it today, he would. It’s a lot easier to take tough positions when you don’t have to back them up with votes. Obama has always been against the Iraq war, and he’s probably the only totally consistent anti-war candidate that the Dems have (at least the only electable one).

4) Hillary knows that she has to look more serious on the war than either Edwards or Obama. That’s why it was a very smart move to condemn Edwards’ defense of his “bumper sticker” statement regarding the war on terror. I am very uncomfortable with most of her domestic proposals, but as far as saying most of the right things on the war on terror, she looked the most hawkish of the three. She didn’t scare me as much in this debate as much as she did in the last two debates.

Continue reading →

1 Comment Posted on Random Musings

it’s about time

cavslogosmall.jpg

CAVS win…the CAVS win the Eastern Conference! (And all this time I thought I didn’t care about the NBA anymore…) Or as Hugh Hewitt already said…FINALLY. The Cleveland Cavaliers, often frustrated by various playoff obstacles(especially by #23), took their own Jordan and got the job done against the Pistons. LeBron showed up in game 5 and was spectacular, showing us all the kind of game he’s capable of having in the playoffs. He’s got a few championships to win before he can claim the title of the next MJ….but LeBron’s headed in the right direction.  Who knows if the Cavs can beat San Antonio in the NBA finals…but now I might even watch the games. 🙂

Tags: , ,

Posted on Random Musings

friday night links

Things that amuse me:

John Edwards’ mom promising me a pie recipe for a donation to his campaign. Apparently June 10th is his birthday, and she wants at least $6.10 by that date for her son’s campaign coffers to give out her secret recipe. Clever. Inventive. One thing for Edwards to keep in mind: Not everyone on his email list is a potential supporter…or even a Democrat. 😉

Hillary’s misspelled sign.

RNCC chairman Tom Cole continuing to request money from me to support Republicans and to support a president who have stopped listening to the conservative base. Actually, I think this annoys me more than it amuses me. President Bush has become increasingly hostile to the few supporters he has left because we disagree on this immigration bill, and some Republicans are going to pay the price for this, even if the president himself will not. This is an incredible level of tone-deafness both by the “leadership” of the Republican party in Washington and our figurehead leader Dubya. What will it take to wake them up? Losing a few more elections?

Other random links for your consideration:

The Heritage Foundation answers the question: “Is this immigration bill any better than the one in 1986?” Based on the 1986 bill that Ronald Reagan also thought would solve the illegal immigration problem, Heritage shows why this new immigration bill is not much better than the last one.

Also worthy of note is one of Michael Medved’s articles at Townhall, where he asks, “Should Mormonism disqualify a candidate?” He says no, and makes a strong case for his argument. I agree with Medved, and I believe that Romney should be judged on his record and the way he answers tough questions. The fact that he’s a Mormon shouldn’t scare anybody, but it does. Because Mormonism creeps people out, especially here in the South, it seems to be more acceptable to say things about a Mormon candidate that you would never say about a Christian candidate or Jewish candidate. I’m not a big fan of the Mormon religion, but saying that “A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” (as Florida televangelist Bill Keller did) is a totally ridiculous statement. There should be better reasons to accept or reject a candidate than his or her religion, and I hope that we will take those other factors into consideration before deciding on the Republican and Democratic nominees for president.

6 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

newt takes on the establishment again

From the New Yorker:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

I think Newt’s right about this. Republicans have been tagged with that label, and it’s going to be hard to recover from that perception. Congressional Republicans did not handle their responsibilities well when they had the majority, and voters recognized that last November when they handed over power to the “not them” Democrats. President Bush should share some of the blame for what happened in the November mid-term elections as well.  The President of the United States is supposed to be the head of our party, but instead he has abdicated that role to conservative talk radio and blogs.  It’s up to the grassroots activists to fight for a re-direction in Congressional priorities and the needed reforms to solve the problems we face as a nation, since no one in Washington D.C. has the desire to do that.

The question becomes whether Newt is the “not them” candidate for the Republicans in 2008. He certainly hasn’t been shy about criticizing Congress and the Bush administration. He has some fascinating ideas, and I would love to see a debate between Newt and Hillary, if only for the sheer entertainment value of such a confrontation. Maybe he’s been out of Congress long enough to be considered an outsider, but it will be hard for him to shake his controversial history while Speaker of the House.  I’m having a hard time believing that Newt Gingrich is electable, but it’s probably a mistake to underestimate his chances, especially this early in the presidential race.

Tags: ,