2 Comments Posted on Republicans

political opportunists

reasonable people can disagree on what would result from the UAE managing (not controlling) some of our ports, and post 9/11, it makes sense to ask questions and give all deals like this a complete and thorough review. mccain was right when he advocated this approach, as I noted in an earlier post. the process of review was short-circuited for political advantage. it was to everyone’s advantage that we have an honest debate based on factual information, not on speculation. i was for the deal. i’m not going to re-argue it here, because it doesn’t matter now.

we were not wrong to ask questions about the deal, but the republicans didn’t really want to hear the answers. they couldn’t get past their overwhelming need for self-preservation to find out whether the president was actually right this time.

congratulations to the republicans. they effectively killed the ports deal. so what will they gain from this politically? will it guarantee re-election? that’s still to be determined. they still have some other issues to work out before we can support them in ’06. this party has stopped being principled. they have forgotten why we elected them to serve us. limited government? checks on spending? not for these republicans. when people like coburn and pence make the attempt to deal with spending, they are brutally rebuffed by their republican colleagues. it really makes one question whether the republicans are committed to small government. the clear answer to that question based on the evidence we have seen is that they are not.

related (UAE ports deal):

Choosing friends wisely–california conservative
We’re less safe thanks to furor over port deal –townhall.com
The Dangers of Ports (and Politicians)–washingtonpost.com
Technorati Tags: ,

6 Comments Posted on Democracy

something to keep in mind

There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility.

John F. Kennedy

interpret for yourself.

Technorati Tags:

UPDATE: this was part of JFK’s prepared Dallas speech, which, as we all know, was never delivered. thanks to james for the link.

5 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

principles DO matter

“The Clinton era did not produce a stronger Democratic Party. To the contrary, it’s legacy is the philosophy that principles don’t matter, that what counts is reading the mood of the electorate and being nimble enough to adjust to changing voter preferences. This counsel probably cost Al Gore the Presidency. The former Vice-President, who’s a person of deep personal morality, got tragically bad advice. He ran a campaign based upon issues, rather than on principles. Surrounded by Clintonistas, Gore attempted to win with a Clinton-style campaign, forgetting that he lacked Bill’s charisma. Gore hid his true character from the electorate. Forgot that he is a values-based Democrat.”

bob burnett– “busting the clinton ghost“

in today’s political arena, i don’t think that the politics of expediency are exclusive to the democrats, although they seem to have perfected it. the truth is that it doesn’t work for anybody except for bill clinton. i can understand how the democrats (at least their current leadership anyway) are tempted by the idea that they should say and do anything they have to do to regain power in washington. it’s a flawed idea. principles do matter. the average voter wants a representative who will stand up and fight for their values. we want someone who navigates by beliefs, not by polls. we want someone who says what he or she will do, and keeps those promises to us. am i promoting some kind of idealistic alternative universe? i don’t think so…as long as we, the unelected, stay engaged in the process of accountability that is required of citizens taking part in this great democracy.

so, how are the democrats doing with reading the mood of the electorate? the polls suggest that many americans have an unfavorable view of president bush and specifically of the UAE ports deal, which is currently in danger of being ditched completely. everyone wants to be re-elected, and they are scared to death of any fallout from bush’s unpopularity. bush-bashing is politically popular, and as long as that continues to be true, they will continue to engage in it. the republicans are also complicit in helping the democrats torpedo the president. it doesn’t matter to any of them that the president may be absolutely right on some of the things he’s doing…all that matters is saving their own skin. this is deplorable.

the question is: what do the democrats believe in? what principles can they stand on? although their far-left fans may cheer as random drive-by attacks on the president are leveled at him, that’s no way to win elections. despite what the average moonbat may have you believe, bush won in 2004. he beat john kerry despite his unpopularity and despite the american people’s uncertainty about iraq. if the democrats think they can win back congress with a message of “i’m not bush”, they are sadly mistaken.

bill press is a smart guy, even though i disagree with him politically. that’s why i’m surprised that this is his advice to the democrats. just run as the anti-bush…and that will be enough to win, says press. press writes about some issues where he feels that the democrats can capitalize on perceived bush weaknesses, and then suggests that all they need to do is run against bush, instead of using some of those issues to promote better ideas. i disagree with bob burnett when he says that gore lost because he focused on issues, rather than principles. i think that issues and principles are not that far divorced from each other. what you believe determines what you will do and what you will say.

it’s not enough for republicans to say, “america is less screwed up with us in charge”. it’s not enough for democrats to invoke the scary spectre of how much they believe george w. bush has ruined this great country. it’s judgment time for both houses. the first party to have a platform other than saying “we are better than the other guys are” will be the party that wins in ’06 and ’08.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

11 Comments Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals, Moonbats, Republicans

the politicians: good, bad, and ugly

this is where we are now. republicans have become fat and lazy with incumbency. democrats have pandered to the unhinged. so…whose party has more hope of a quick recovery? my vote goes to the republicans. it’s easier to recover from what ails the republicans than it is for the democrats to extricate themselves from their love affair with their passionate left-wing contingent.both sides are out of touch with what their average members believe.

the democrats are not accurately represented by codepink, daily kos and DU, and the average moonbat hippie socialist. i’m guessing that the average democrat probably isn’t happy about the fact that howard dean is in charge and speaking for their party. none of the democrats who want to be president in ’08 have shown the ability to lead their party back to becoming a legitimate alternative to the republicans. take this to the bank: they will never achieve that goal until they get rid of howard dean and appeal to their non-moonbat base.

now to the republicans. they are a deeply flawed party at this point. they have become comfortable with the status quo and they need a wake-up call. hopefully this can take place without a massive voter revolt against them in the ’06 primaries. these are some of the issues the republicans need to address and make central to their campaigns. spending must be cut as well as taxes. border security must be dealt with. if they took any money from abramoff, they must take responsibility for that decision, and return any unethical donations. being accountable to the voters who elected them is something both parties need to work on if they want to keep their jobs.

i think it’s more likely that the republicans can get past their current struggles as long as they don’t take the democrats for granted. as for the democrats, i wish them a whole lot of luck. they have to replace howard dean, gag hillary, reid and kennedy, and stop pandering to kos and his ideological twins. i almost forgot something important: get a plan that doesn’t just consist of opposing the president’s policies that would also present a positive view of america. that’s a tall order.

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

mitt romney: conveniently pro-life?

those of you who have been reading this blog for a few months know that i have supported the idea of governor mitt romney running for president in ’08 from the beginning. i like the fact that he has reduced the size of government in massachusetts. his message also appeals to me. i think that a message that speaks to issues of concern to many americans, including education, health care, and the necessary reform of social services, is the right one for republicans to adopt. i’m glad romney is talking about these things, and i hope that the message will be copied by other republicans who want to be our next president.

i like romney. have i been clear enough about that? however, i think his conflicting views on abortion are going to end up being a stumbling block for him on the road to the republican nomination.

the following exchange took place between governor romney and chris wallace on fox news sunday.

WALLACE: You have come under fire for allegedly flip-flopping on the issue of abortion. You’ve faced questions about that, so let’s talk about that today. When you were running for governor of Massachusetts back in 2002, you said — and let’s put it up on the screen — “I believe women should have the right to make their own choice.”

But now that you’re considering a race for president, you say you’re a pro-life governor who wishes the laws of the nation could reflect that view. Governor, why the change?

ROMNEY: Well, we had a major issue in Massachusetts, and it surrounded stem cell research. I spent a lot of time talking with people scientific in background as well as religious and spent a lot of time understanding when it was that as a society we needed to respect human life and came to the conclusion that it’s time to be very clear on that, that when conception occurs that human life has begun.

I’m not talking about religious definitions, but scientific definitions — and that to respect human life, we have to do so from conception. And therefore, I indicated I am pro-life and will respect the rights of human life.

WALLACE: But I don’t understand, Governor. I mean, the stem cell question, which often deals with the question of harvesting of eggs or fetuses to be used for stem cell — that isn’t why most women get abortions. I mean, there’s a division there, isn’t there?

ROMNEY: Well, there is a division there, and I’m happy to talk about stem cell research.

WALLACE: Well, no, but I’m asking about abortion. I mean, the vast majority of women aren’t getting an abortion so that they can sell their fetus.

ROMNEY: No, this is about when respect for life begins and when we as a society — and I believe fundamentally in a society there has to be respect for human life.

And when I ran for governor, I said very clearly I do not support abortion, I do not favor abortion, but I will maintain a moratorium on any change in the laws of Massachusetts relating to abortion.

One of the big issues in our race was whether there was going to be a reduction in the age of parental involvement in abortion from 18 to 16. I said no, no change in abortion laws. But I didn’t call myself pro-life or pro-choice. But after…

WALLACE: But you did say, as I said in the quote, women should have the right to make their own choice. I guess the question I have is are you saying that you only came to the conclusion about when life begins — this has been an issue for 30 years, 40 years — in the last three years?

ROMNEY: Chris, what I’m saying is that my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before. And I said — and the time of the change came as we were involved in the discussion of stem cell research, and I said at that point I am pro-life.

I’ve never used either title, pro-life or pro-choice, in the past. I said I don’t favor abortion. I wouldn’t change the laws as governor because I believe each state should have the right to make their own choice. But I’m very firmly pro-life.

i don’t think romney had a very strong answer to chris wallace’s questions about abortion. there are some things in his record that he can’t gloss over by talking about his views on stem cell research. romney has the inconvenient problem of trying to survive politically in a hard-core democratic (some might even say a liberal) state. i guess i could see the necessity of occasional compromises, but an issue like abortion is something that a governor who wants to be president should have decided one way or the other. the theory that the next republican nominee will most likely be pro-life seems logical to me, and it makes sense that romney would want to position himself that way.

there’s some contradictory evidence that romney may not be “firmly pro-life” as he says. it’s hard to distance yourself from supporting the legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug. he also has made past statements, in which he says that he is personally opposed to abortion, but that he would not attempt to change the laws of massachusetts to reflect that belief. that might be a hard sell to many in the pro-life community.
romney’s position that the states should decide on whether abortion should be legal or not sounds reasonable to me, but i’m not sure it will satisfy his critics on this issue. it’s possible to change your mind on abortion. i just hope that romney’s “firmly pro-life” position is genuine, and not a position taken for political advantage. i would like to believe that it is genuine. we will see what other pro-lifers think closer to the ’08 election.

related:

Romney reaches out to party’s evangelical base–the state (SC)
Romney Touts Conservative Credentials in S.C.–chris cillizza’s politics blog (washingtonpost.com)

Posted on George W. Bush, Random Musings

the UAE port controversy

“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”

–senator john mccain, quoted here.

mccain’s making a ton of sense. i agree with this. i think we need to look at this port sale deal carefully and make sure we have fully vetted any company who wishes to be involved with our ports on any level. i’ll be honest. i have my doubts about the wisdom of allowing this deal to take place. on the other hand, i’m not sure if we really want to alienate a country who has provided some level of operational support to the united states in the war on terror. opponents and supporters of this sale have both made convincing arguments.

i don’t think that democrats who have spoken out against this port sale are doing so for the sole purpose of looking tough on security, although that may be a fringe benefit. i’m also not cynical enough to suggest that some of those democrats are protecting union interests by opposing the deal, as some conservatives have done. maybe they are, but i would like to believe that they have actually thought about this before taking a position on it. the most inane argument against it is the accusation that those who have concerns about this deal believe that all arabs are terrorists…that we are racists, in other words. that’s not the right sales pitch.

of course we don’t believe that all arabs are terrorists. we realize that we can’t paint them all with the same brush. that said, based on dubai’s past history, it is rational and natural to have legitimate concerns about any involvement they might have with our ports. it’s not racism. it’s common sense. i think mccain has the right idea. we need to examine all the evidence before we rush to judgment based on limited information.

i’m ok with dubai ports world leasing space in our ports, with these conditions:

  • there is a thorough and complete vetting process, including questions about their effectiveness in providing service in other countries
  • port workers should be screened carefully, and be subject to extensive background checks (this goes for all of them, not just those from any UAE-affliated company)
  • the coast guard will continue to control security at the ports
  • the local port authorities will still be in charge of owning and operating the ports

there may be other needed conditions to make this transaction work for both sides, but i think that we need to consider the deal. once we get all the information on this, i think the president could win this argument, but i have absolutely no confidence in his ability to sell any of his policies to us (or even to his own party).

related posts/articles:

The UAE purchase of American port facilities (FAQ)–council on foreign relations (CFR)
The Ports Deal Makes a Comeback–real clear politics blog
Security fears about infiltration by terrorists–washington times (bill gertz)
Ports of Politics–opinionjournal.com (WSJ editorial)
Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers–california conservative

9 Comments Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush, Republicans

the great communicator and the big spender

George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. Democrats accost him for being like Reagan while Republicans praise him for it. It is a fact that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across the board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. President Reagan successfully lightened the tax burden on the American people, and oversaw a massive defense spending build-up. Given President Bush’s recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting. However, at this stage in his presidency, Mr. Bush’s dismal record on spending when measured against Mr. Reagan’s nullifies this temptation. Better yet, in light of President Bush’s spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than Reagan.

Let’s look at the facts. If we compare the three-year percentage change in real spending during Reagan and Bush’s first terms, President Bush comes out as a profligate spender on his own and as compared to Reagan. Under President Bush, real total outlays are estimated to increase by 13.5 percent as opposed to 6.8 percent under Reagan. More importantly, total real discretionary outlays are set to increase by 19.5 percent under the Bush administration while they increased by only 2.8 percent under Reagan.

it’s a rather cruel cut to imply that dubya is similar to jimmy carter in anything that he does….there’s not much (if anything) jimmy carter did right as president. more numbers and artwork here (from the cato institute) to support this claim. bush 43 just can’t say no to new spending. it’s not just defense spending either, where significant increases in the amount allocated to that part of the budget are to be expected post 9-11. the numbers here represent president bush’s unwillingness to stop his own party from wasting our money. this is not to say that there is no economic benefit to tax cuts, because this can be easily proven. however, we can’t continue on this current spending spree. we must cut up the government credit cards, before our country suffers the economic decline of the majority of european countries.

reagan and bush have a few things in common, but their economic policies were vastly different, in theory and in practice. reagan used the veto on occasion, but bush doesn’t seem to believe in using his. bipartisanship doesn’t always produce good policy. neither does proposing legislation that ted kennedy will support.

we can blame the republicans and the democrats as well as our president. everyone should share the blame and the consequences of their reckless behavior on spending. i hope that the ’06 election will bring some accountability to the “leadership” in DC. big government has returned, and it must be destroyed before it causes further damage.

related:

(pdf)on spending, bush is no reagan — cato institute
Bush vs. the Deficit Hawks — opinionjournal.com
Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits–real clear politics