Posted on '08 Election

another question for senator biden

why isn’t biden promoting HIS iraq plan(pdf) now that the dems are in charge? if he really believes that it would work, this would give him a major edge over all the other democratic presidential candidates. kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it? the question for the ’08 contenders should be how they would deal with external threats to our country and what steps they would take to ensure the safety and security of this nation. i’m looking for someone who takes this seriously, understands the nature of the enemy we face, and can sell their strategy for the war on terror…which will not be over when president bush leaves office.biden has the most experience of the dem candidates on foreign policy (and in running for president), but he hasn’t proven that he has any staying power or the charisma that kerry lacked. is he more likable than kerry? well, yes…but that wouldn’t take much. do we really want another east coast liberal as the democratic nominee? maybe the conventional wisdom is overrated in this case. even though i am skeptical about biden’s chances, i still think he would be the smartest pick from the current field of democratic candidates.

take a look at these candidates. hillary is not as strong as the media wants her to be. obama-mania will fade at some point. people will soon remember why they rejected john edwards the first time. kucinich and sharpton (if he should decide to run) will provide some laughs, but not much else. there could be others jumping into the pool, but at the end, it won’t matter much.

this is not to suggest that the republican field has a much stronger group of candidates. there’s something to dislike in all the frontrunners and there are serious questions about each one. for some reason, conservatives hate mccain. right resume, wrong messenger. giuliani is far from a social conservative, but he can claim some successes from his tenure as “america’s mayor” and his leadership after 9/11. he also has previously supported a guest worker program for illegal immigrants, which will earn him no points with the “no amnesty” crowd, and has argued for providing city services for them while mayor of new york city. then there’s romney, who may or may not persuade conservatives that he is conservative enough for them, and he’s a mormon on top of that. i still contend that the question of romney’s conservatism will be more important to republican base voters than his religion. the only reason that his conservatism or lack of it should matter is that the next president could get to make a few judicial nominations, including the supreme court, and it would irk social conservatives if he nominated someone who was pro-choice.

as for the second and third tier possibilities, the most you can say for them is that they definitely are more conservative than the top three contenders (who have actually announced that they are running). what these gentlemen might want to keep in mind is that while you can generate buzz by being single-issue candidates, it would help to be more well-rounded for a presidential run. i like what i have heard from sam brownback and mike huckabee. however, i don’t know whether they could get enough name recognition to be serious contenders. same goes for duncan hunter, although he might be the strongest candidate on this level.

then there’s always the possibility of newt….what will he do? he will have a great deal of influence on the outcome of the ’08 election, even if he decides not to run.

tags: , , , ,

1 Comment Posted on Iraq

no surrender

you can agree or disagree with the specifics of the president’s plan for iraq that he explained to us last night. it’s hard to say whether this will work or not, but i have confidence that we will hold up our end of the deal, at least as long as president bush is in office. the rest is up to the iraqis.  that is the strength and the weakness of this plan. it is time for some hard choices to be made by the iraqis, and i’m not sure their government has the courage and political will to make those decisions. i hope i’m wrong about that. even though i want this plan to succeed, there’s only so much we can do in supporting the iraqi government. it’s easy for us to insist that the iraqis should get past old sectarian conflicts and move forward together, but that hasn’t been their history. while i believe that sending more troops to iraq is the right thing to do, it is only part of a solution that must come with political and some economic concessions by the maliki government.

quite a few democrats (and several republicans) oppose the troop surge.  fair enough. there are convincing arguments to be made on both sides. there are some democrats, like ted kennedy for example, who actually propose de-funding this troop surge. talk is cheap. at least kennedy is actually acting on his convictions. that’s more than his democratic colleagues will do. cindy sheehan and her fellow anti-war pals will be sorely disappointed by the performance of the new democratic majority if they believe that anything serious will get done about bringing the troops home now.  oh sure, there will probably be investigations and threats.  as far as voting to bring the troops home now, or any proposal to withhold funds for reinforcements for the military men and women already in iraq — the democrats are all hat and no cattle.  it won’t happen.

now that the president has presented his plan, it’s the democrats’ turn. the american people gave them an opportunity to provide leadership and a new direction in iraq, and they don’t even put it at the top of their list of priorities, instead focusing on prescription drugs and the minimum wage.  the consequences of losing iraq are more serious than a black mark on president bush’s legacy.  i hope the democrats understand this, and that they will act in the best interests of our country when considering what’s next for iraq.

 

4 Comments Posted on Democracy

neil boortz calls us out

Can our love of freedom be rekindled? Frankly, I doubt it. We’re too lazy. Too used to the good life. We love living as adult children with our mommy and daddy, in the form of government, taking care of our basic needs while we sit around worrying who the next Falcons head coach will be and who is going to be the next American Idol.

I guess in a few years from now some young people will look at me and think to themselves “He’s old! Yeeechhhhh.” Yeah, maybe so. But I knew America when freedom was precious. I knew America before the war on the individual. I knew America before political correctness. I knew America when individual accomplishment was celebrated, not derided; when grades meant something and when the mother of a functionally illiterate child didn’t drive around with a “My child is an honor student” bumper sticker on her car….

Can America be saved? Can we be rescued from politicians who are more interested in their positions of power and the perks that come with membership in the congress? Perhaps … but I don’t see it happening. I don’t see it happening as long as CNN can travel to the sidewalks and find some young bimbo who will proclaim that she doesn’t want to manage any part of her own retirement plans — that she would rather have the government do it all for her. I don’t see it happening as long as people look to the government to set their wage rates. And I certainly don’t see it happening as long as the American people remain blissfully unaware of the threat of Islamic fascism.neil boortz

read it all here.

he’s right. when will we realize that giving more control to the government means that the average american has less control of his or her own life? we have gotten soft, and in the world we live in today, apathy is a luxury we cannot afford to keep for very long. america faces external threats. those demand the attention of the united states government, and rightly so. it also faces internal threats which also threaten to destroy our civilization from within. we cannot allow this to happen.

tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

questions for the next election

from the economist:

The race will be about policy substance above and beyond the backdrop formed by the drama of Iraq. Both parties are confronted with deep questions about their identities. The Republicans have to deal with the consequences of George Bush’s big-government big-foreign-policy conservatism. Should they return to the anti-government policies of Mr Gingrich and his fellow radicals? Or to the “realist” foreign policy of Mr Bush senior? The party will probably have candidates willing to offer vigorous answers to all these questions, from Newt himself to long-standing advocates of realpolitik such as Chuck Hagel, a senator from Nebraska. It will also have candidates who are willing to offer unexpected variations on traditional themes. Mr Giuliani is a hawk on terrorism but a liberal on social issues; Mr McCain has developed an idiosyncratic variety of reform Republicanism.

The Democrats confront equally urgent questions. Should they return to Bill Clinton’s centrist policies? Or do they need to listen to the left? The former first lady will make a formidable champion of Clintonism. But the centre of gravity in her party has shifted dramatically leftwards—the relentless growth in inequality has put a question mark against Mr Clinton’s support for globalisation, and the debacle in Iraq has strengthened the party’s pacifist wing.

yes to anti-government. i guess those brits will just have to call me a radical. there’s no shame in denouncing the welfare state that has made state and federal governments enablers of the lazy. yes, i realize that there are exceptions where government assistance is necessary, but once a bureaucracy is created, it never gets smaller. hurricane katrina taught us a painful lesson — that it will not always be possible to depend on government to take care of us in an emergency situation, no matter which party is running it. the will to confront the enemies we face and to always be vigilant in defending america’s freedoms begins and ends with the american people, not with our government. the united states government can do more than it is doing to protect us, but there will never be any guarantees that there will not be another terrorist attack on US soil.

(that is…unless you assume the opposite of pat robertson’s predictions)

no to realist foreign policy. it didn’t work for bush 41. it won’t work now. oh yeah…and james baker isn’t a genius.

do we want a return to clintonism? was it really all that great the first time we saw it? if we really want to see something similar, then the country will have to kick out the democrats again so we can watch hillary compromise with the new republican congress. that would be fun. no, i’m done watching the clinton approach to foreign and domestic policy. 8 years of that was quite enough, thanks. i think the democrats should try someone new. i still haven’t seen the can’t miss candidate in the democratic field so far.

i think it would be a mistake for the democrats to embrace the far left. that’s never a great strategy to win general elections.

tags: , ,

Posted on Iraq

saddam’s death

cnn has the story and the video of his execution here(with a graphic content warning) if you really want to see it.

andy mccarthy at NRO:

This is a solemn, important moment. It’s not a joyous one. An evil man deserved to die. His elimination was necessary — not close to sufficient, but necessary — for achieving, over time, a semblance civilized stability in Iraq. The celebration in the streets, though, the dancing and firing guns in the air, does not augur well for that achievement.

This wasn’t victory. It didn’t end suffering. It was, in the heat of a war that has actually gotten more vicious and more uncertain since Saddam’s capture three years ago, the carrying out of an essential but unpleasant duty. It marginally enhances Iraq’s propects, and ours. But Saddam’s death (as opposed to his deposing) has no impact whatsoever on the deep dysfunction and hatred that is rending what passes for Iraqi society. The unbridled display of dancing and shooting says more about that than the death of one man — monstrous though he was — who has been imprisoned for three years.

Saddam’s death is a marker worth observing. It is not something to go up in a balloon over.

saddam’s death won’t heal all wounds he inflicted on his victims, but it will be some measure of justice for them. it was primarily a victory for the iraqi people, not for the united states government. we can breathe a sigh of relief that saddam is gone, and that he will not return to power. that is the only guarantee we have. we can’t guarantee that saddam loyalists will now join the political process and help stabilize iraq’s new government. i hope that they will, but deep ethnic and religious divisions among the iraqi people can’t be bridged without a struggle, even with the death of a dictator.

tags: ,

10 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

just take the field

things aren’t going so well for senator rodham in her possible bid to be our next president. is it possible that she would decide that ’08 is not her year after all? well…no. just because a few polls haven’t gone her way, that doesn’t automatically translate into votes or a nomination for any of the other contenders. that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take those contenders seriously. there is reason to believe that democrats are not so thrilled about a hillary candidacy, and they are looking for someone else to support in ’08. have they found that someone else in senator barack obama? maybe their savior could be mr. “two americas”.

john edwards and barack obama could pose a threat to hillary’s chances if they can present themselves as that someone else, and perhaps even a more electable someone else. they certainly have the capacity to raise ridiculous amounts of money. edwards is still relatively popular, even though he couldn’t seem to deliver his own state to kerry in ’04. obama has come out of relative obscurity (to the non-political folks at least) to become the next big thing in candidates. i’m always skeptical of that tag because that phrase is used too frequently to have any significant meaning. obama should be wary of all the hype, because eventually the honeymoon will be over and people will start to ask serious questions about his record and whether he has the right experience to hold the highest office in the land.

have we found a worthy democratic nominee in this group? the democrats will get the opportunity to decide that later on this year.

for unabashed mockery of john edwards that you would never find on this blog, enjoy wonkette and scrappleface.

tags: , , ,

4 Comments Posted on Random Musings

paradise still MIA

i don’t know if there is anything left to say about the Christmas holiday that hasn’t been already said. there are those who wish to bash consumerism, materialism, and the american desire to spend insane amounts of money on gifts for each other when there is still so much poverty and need in the world. it’s an old story line, and even though there is always room to make a deeper sacrifice to help those in need, we should always be grateful for what we have. for those who believe in God, we can take another opportunity to thank Him for providing for us, and for being everything that we need. Christmas is a great time to reflect on the past year — the things we have gained, and even what we have lost.

in this life, nothing is ever permanent. everything is temporary. material things get scratched and damaged. relationships and friendships begin and end too soon. wasn’t it the bard who said that it was better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all? the sentiment is true. if you risk nothing, you gain nothing. sometimes you win. sometimes you don’t. sometimes you just have to accept that a friendship is over, no matter how much you love that person, and even though you still don’t understand the reasons for it.

maybe none of this makes sense to anyone but me, but it’s something i had to write.

i would also like to thank my current sparring buddies residing here and here for their kind support, and also to a former blogger and duke basketball fan who keeps this conservative honest.

to my former sparring buddy…thanks for the wild ride and the good times. i have no regrets, and i hope you don’t either. i’m sure you will forgive me someday. happy christmas to you.

to everyone else…Merry Christmas!

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

good point

ramesh ponnuru on romney and the abortion question:

I think we ought to be unsentimental about this question. Those of us who favor Romney’s position on sanctity-of-life issues ought to care less about its sincerity than about its stability. We ought to care about whether he will abandon the position, that is, not whether he truly believes it. Pro-lifers would win very few votes in Congress if every representative voted his conscience, after all. Presumably a politician is more likely to stick with a position if he deeply believes it; but it is too facile to say that having flipped before, a politician will flop again.

As a test case, I offer the first President Bush. He converted from pro-choice to pro-life, and many questioned his sincerity since the conversion dovetailed so perfectly with his political needs. I myself think that he genuinely became a moderate pro-lifer: But does the answer really matter? He was a steady friend of pro-lifers during his administration, vetoing one pro-abortion bill after another.

If a politician can’t project sincerity even when he is insincere—or worse, can’t do it when he really is sincere—then he is probably in the wrong business. The suspicious timing of Romney’s change of mind may end up dooming his candidacy. But in that case, the most likely beneficiary is John McCain, the sincerity of whose own pro-life convictions has been questioned, and we will have to answer the same questions about him.

if pro-lifers want to support a romney candidacy, that’s really the question we need to ask — whether romney’s current position on abortion will change if he is elected. his earlier interviews weren’t helpful in determining the answer to this. i think that that his apparent change of heart is genuine, but i can certainly understand why many social conservatives aren’t convinced.

dean barnett offers a similar defense of romney’s past record here.

social conservatives will never get everything they want. we have had some of the most socially conservative presidents and some of the most liberal-friendly oval office occupants. what has been gained by the social conservatives as a result of their endorsement of certain candidates? abortion is still legal, gay marriage now exists in several states, and congress couldn’t make any progress on that flag-burning amendment. isn’t it possible that the president of the united states might not have the ability to make any major changes, no matter what his personal beliefs may be on these issues?

the same is true for mitt romney. he was lucky to accomplish as much as he did in massachusetts with the opposition he had.

tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

be careful what you wish for

i will never completely understand why being the president of the united states is such a desirable job. yeah, sure, you get a cool jet to fly around in, and there are quite a few other great perks, but ultimately it’s your job to figure out what to do about iraq. let’s not forget about north korea, china, russia, and iran, other countries we need to keep an eye on. the next president of this country gets to deal with all that, plus he or she will have to figure out how to pass any of their wonderful proposals through congress, while enduring daily abuse by the press and the blogosphere. yep…that’s a job i really want.

of course, if a candidate successfully navigates the gauntlet — that is, the rough-and-tumble campaign for the nomination of their party– and then wins the general election, that does deserve some kind of reward. not every potential candidate has this ability. does obama have it? that is yet to be determined. he hasn’t faced a serious challenge of the type that he will face if he goes head to head with hillary clinton in a fight to be the democrats’ presidential candidate in ’08.

barack obama’s appeal is not so much about who he is, but it is also about who he is not. he’s the anti-hillary. he’s a fresh face with none of the political baggage that she carries. he looks like such a charming guy, and speaks to people from the heart, and it could be easy to forget that his record on social issues isn’t much different from senator clinton’s. democrats aren’t that sold on hillary, and they are actively looking for other alternatives. john fund makes that point here.

i think that the honeymoon will be over for obama when people start to take a harder look at his record, because what they will find out is that there is more to the guy than his positive press clippings and fawning media coverage.

tags: ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

bye bayh

senator evan bayh is not running for president. that’s definitely a surprise to many of us who speculated that he could possibly make a strong run for the white house. of course, all of the speculation was made before the obama hype began. with hillary clinton, barack obama, and the possible entrance of john edwards into the race for the democratic nomination in ’08, there doesn’t seem to be room for another big dog.

here’s senator bayh’s official statement:

During my two terms as Governor and now in the United States Senate, it has always been more about the people I was able to help than the job I held. As you know I have been exploring helping the people of my state and our country in a different capacity. After talking with family and friends over the past several days, I have decided that this is not the year for me to run for President and I will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2008. It wasn’t an easy decision but it was the right one for my family, my friends and my state. I have always prided myself on putting my public responsibilities ahead of my own ambitions.

The odds were always going to be very long for a relatively unknown candidate like myself, a little bit like David and Goliath. And whether there were too many Goliaths or whether I’m just not the right David, the fact remains that at the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue. This path – and these long odds – would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.

I am immensely grateful for the support of my family and friends and the thousands of people around the country who helped me with their time and their resources. There may be no campaign in the near future, but there is much work to be done. When the Senate returns, I will focus on the issues that matter to the people of my state and are critical to the future of the nation including reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating opportunity for middle class families, and implementing a national security strategy that is both tough and smart.

i think that the wrong guy dropped out of the race. it should have been john edwards. edwards has the name recognition, the cash, and the personality to be a strong candidate if he can make a dent in the hillary-obama juggernaut. there’s no denying that on a political level, former senator edwards has everything going for him. he has everything except that lack of experience i mentioned in the previous post, which could keep him from being president. while acknowledging that there probably wouldn’t be a democrat that i could reasonably support in their bid to be the democratic nominee, i think that senator bayh is certainly more credible on national security than former senator john edwards.

senator bayh made a wise choice here. i am not second-guessing his decision here, because the deck was stacked against him. there may be a place for him in ’08 as a possible VP candidate. we will have to wait and see what happens.

tags: , ,