I'd love to see that question polled.
This administration's handling of the Christmas Day bomber is nothing short of a dereliction of duty. Barack Obama, you are the President of the United States, and your highest duty is to protect American lives and property.
Sure, it was ridiculous that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was even allowed on a plane to Detroit, given all the red flags that existed prior to the attempted attack. But that's not your fault, sir. It was a bureaucratic failure- a major one, a nearly catastrophic one, but not a presidential failure. I had no harsh words for you, although I did question whether your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, ought be allowed to soldier on after boldly claiming that "the system worked."
But it's the handling of the Underwear Bomber in the aftermath of the attack that has been an absolute travesty. We questioned Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes, and then decided to read him his Miranda rights. "You have the right to remain silent," we told this barbarian...despite the fact that he's not an American citizen and not a lawful combatant of any sort. He's a war criminal who attempted to blow an airplane out the sky on Christmas. But, under your administration, Abdulmutallab has a right to remain silent. It's unconscionable and indefensible.
How do I know it's indefensible? Simple. You have yet to offer any coherent defense of your administration's handling of terrorists like Abdulmutallab. You spoke for 70 minutes the other night during your State of the Union address. Mr. President, if you honestly believe this man has a right to remain silent, by all means, PLEASE explain why and on what grounds. After all, you're supposedly a constitutional law expert. And you have no shortage of regard for your abilities. So, for the love of God, why do terrorists have the right to remain silent?
I'm angry. I'm angry that your administration is willfully imperiling our national security. Mr. Obama, you can't put American lives at risk and then not even explain to us WHY you're doing it (or, alternatively, why in your opinion your policy isn't actually putting lives at risk). You owe me and everyone else whose lives would seem to be at a higher risk now an explanation.
This isn't a one-time thing, either. Mr. Obama, you announced your decision to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay and transfer detainees to American soil...but your only explanation for this decision has been that it removes one of al-Qaeda's key recruiting tools/rallying cries. Mr. President, with all due respect, that's garbage. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing happened before Gitmo ever existed. So did the bombing of the USS Cole. So did 9/11. Gitmo doesn't cause terrorism. Period. If you seriously expect us ordinary folks to accept that line of argument, that's an insight into just how foolish and ignorant you think we are.
Of course Osama bin Laden is going to say that al Qaeda attacks innocent Americans because of Gitmo. It's called propaganda. Mr. President, when did we start taking our cues from Mr. bin Laden? Last I checked, that's called appeasement. And it's appeasement of the worst possible kind. Al Qaeda also lists American support for Israel as a reason for their continued violence...so should we stop supporting Israel?
Mr. President, on Christmas Day, we got INCREDIBLY fortunate as a nation. Hundreds of innocent lives were spared when the bomb failed to detonate on that airplane, thanks to incompetence on the part of the terrorist and the bravery of the passengers, and no thanks to the "system," which failed miserably.
But that's not the only reason we were lucky. You see, Mr. President, as we carted the terrorist with his scorched crotch off of that airliner, we had an extraordinary opportunity to gather important intelligence information by interrogating him. We could have gotten phone numbers, contact information for the people who trained him. We could have learned where the Islamic terrorist training camps are in Yemen. We could have found out what Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula knows and doesn't know about our efforts to hunt them down. The list goes on. It was an incredible chance to get a leg up in the global War on Islamic Terror that, based on the terminology you and your administration use, apparently no longer even exists in your mind. But in the real world, it does exist. It's still all too real.
Mr. President, I implore you: please explain why Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has a right to remain silent. He was babbling freely right after the attack, and then we inexplicably decide to tell him you have a right to keep quiet...and a right to a lawyer, at taxpayer expense??? That's awful, sir. You owe us either an explanation, or an apology and a change in direction. I sincerely hope it's the latter, because this is a question of national security. For your good and the good of your country, swallow your pride this time, admit your mistakes, and change course. It won't make you a flip-flopper, except maybe to the anti-war loons in your party. It'll make you seem like someone who is learning on the job. It'll make the country safer. And it'll make you seem humble.
And believe me, Mr. President, you could use a healthy dose of that.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
New Look!
Many thanks to my esteemed friend/extraordinary artist and designer Courtney Martin Peck for offering some constructive criticism on changing my blog colors! Hope the new look is easier to read/more appealing to the eye...I have no artistic/creative skills AT ALL.
Thanks Courtney!
Thanks Courtney!
State of the Union Recap/Thoughts
President Obama delivered his first official State of the Union address to Congress and the American people last night, though it was already his third address to a joint session of Congress (last year, he gave a "State of the Nation" speech and the health care reform speech in front of the House and Senate).
So how'd he do? Before getting into some specific things that caught my eye/ear, I'll provide some general, big-picture thoughts. It was well-delivered, as are most of the president's speeches, and he was far more passionate than he has often been over the past year- no doubt a calculated maneuver to offset the criticism that he is too detached, cold, and out-of-touch with ordinary Americans. Unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Barack Obama, an Ivy League-educated, elitist liberal constitutional law professor, has to make a serious effort to seem as if he empathizes with the plight of Americans who are jobless or struggling to make ends meet. Last night, I think he was fairly successful at that.
The speech was too long, and it was also too sharply partisan- especially from a man who promised "hope," a changed culture in Washington, and a nation not of blue and red states but of unified, purple ones. It's the ultimate irony/hypocrisy- this president constantly rails against the hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington DC and politics as usual, and then promptly begins his partisan sniping.
He couldn't resist repeatedly slamming the Bush administration (he never did it by naming "Bush," but instead kept talking about the mess he inherited/the failures of the "last 8 years"), a tactic that became stale and ineffective months ago. He won an election by doing it, but continuing in campaign mode has made this president seem petulant, petty, and unpresidential. It has to stop. Voters are tired of it, as Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts made clear.
On a side note, repeating this crap about the "last 8 years" drives me especially crazy since DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR THE LAST TWO. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their liberal minions in Congress passed the last two budgets, not George W. Bush. Obama, a former constitutional law professor (!) needs a basic civics lesson, so that he'll finally understand that it's Congress, not the President, that exclusively holds the power of the purse.
I had a Word Document open during the address last night and I typed out some notes as Obama spoke. Here are some of the points that I felt were important/interesting/ridiculous:
- Early on in the speech, the president said, ”I’ve never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight." It's a vapid, stupid, throwaway line...and, what's worse, it makes him seem far more out-of-touch than optimistic. Most Americans aren't nearly as sanguine about the prospects of economic revival as this president.
- Obama cited the "2 million jobs" that the "stimulus" saved...which is, as so many media outlets have showed, a completely made-up number. He claimed that "first responders" and "teachers" were among those whose jobs were saved...but that's at least deceptive if not untruthful. The vast majority of policemen, firefighters, and teachers weren't really going to lose their jobs without stimulus money. As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has astutely observed again and again, the stimulus money was actually used to paper over holes in state budgets for another year, saving useless bureaucratic jobs that ought to have been cut back. The stimulus allowed state and local governments to continue living lavishly instead of trimming the fat like many American families have had to do.
- Obama repeatedly presented himself as the "fighter"- and he reserved especially harsh words for the Democrat-controlled Senate. On several occasions, he urged the Senate to follow the House's lead in passing things like financial reform, comprehensive energy reform, etc.
- The president, unsurprisingly given his incredible hubris/arrogance, was unable to admit that the health care reform plan that he favors is opposed by a majority of Americans because it's a bad bill. Furthermore, it was absolutely disgusting that he took credit for ending the war in Iraq- first, because he couldn't bring himself to say we had WON, and second, because we've only been able to responsibly wind down US involvement thanks to the surge strategy implemented by President Bush- a policy that Senator/Candidate Obama vociferously opposed.
- I smiled when they panned to Senator McCain and you could see him mouth "Blame it on Bush" to the person sitting next to him after Obama launched into another one of his exhausting "we're in this mess because of the last 8 years" statements.
- Obama's remark about lobbyists not being appointed to administration posts was laugh-provoking. I was waiting for someone to shout "YOU LIE!" after he said it. Boy, it takes a healthy amount of chutzpah to stand up in front of Congress and the American people and just tell a bare-faced whopper of a lie.
- Perhaps the most interesting part of the address was, I thought, the moment at which President Obama openly scolded the Supreme Court for its recent ruling on campaign finance restrictions. With the justices seated right in front of him, it was uncomfortable and awkward to watch...and it certainly seemed inappropriate, given separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law, to demagogue them like Obama did. It was even more revolting watching Senators like Chuck Schumer grin and applaud loudly right in the justices' ears from the row behind them. Ew. GOOD FOR SAM ALITO THOUGH- you could see him shake his head slightly and whisper "not true" when Obama made yet another inaccurate statement about the ruling (once again- come on Barack! You were a constitutional law expert supposedly!). Some will say Alito ought not have done this- but Obama and the Democrats who stood and applauded raucously are the ones in the wrong. It was a breach of decorum, and Obama owes the Court an apology- especially the 5 justices who issued the ruling (Kennedy, often the swing vote, wrote the majority decision).
- Obama spent far too little time on foreign affairs/fighting terrorism. After the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day bombing attempt, he owed it to the American people to offer a coherent defense of his administration's anti-terror policies. If he supports Attorney General Holder's policy of trying KSM in NYC- and he must because, after all, Barack Obama is the decider- then he should have defended it. Ditto closing Gitmo and moving terrorists to US soil. Ditto treating the undie-bomber as a criminal and Mirandizing him rather than treating him as an unlawful enemy combatant and interrogating him in a military setting to extract intelligence that could bolster homeland security and our efforts to disrupt terrorism abroad.
- His casual and unbelievably unspecific mentions of a) repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and b) the need to fix our broken immigration system were silly. Surely no one, not legislators, not the American people, honestly believes he cares a whit about these issues. The empty, tepid rhetorical support for these two agenda items certainly didn't help Obama with his party's base.
- Obama did a nice job injecting a little humor into the address, and he also finished strong with his "We don't quit, I won't quit" line.
So there are some of the parts of the speech that I highlighted as I watched.
What I did find a bit surprising was that there was certainly no move toward the center by the president. He's determined to keep on governing from the left, it appears, which must be making the Blue Dog Democrats squirm. Barack Obama realizes he's not on the ballot in 2010, and it looks like it'll take a disastrous midterm election (a la Clinton in '94) to force him to do something like Clinton's triangulation. That can't sit well with Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Co. But oh well. By not pivoting toward the center, Obama showed an extraordinary degree of defiance and a lot of egotism. He basically flipped Republicans, a number of Democrats, the entire Senate, and a majority of Americans the bird last night. If you don't like my policies, tough, you're getting them anyway, because I know what's best. It's quite an attitude- and one he's likely to pay for in 2010 and 2012, if he cares.
Oh, and one final thought: if the president really wants Americans to see him as a FIGHTER, why doesn't he start by vowing to fight the Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us as war criminals/unlawful combatants instead of common criminals entitled to the same rights as American citizens? Just askin'.
Finally- the Republican response by Bob McDonnell, the recently-elected governor of Virginia. It was nothing special, but of course much better than Bobby Jindal's rejoinder to the State of the Nation last year. McDonnell did what he had to do, and he did it quite well. Kudos to him for repeatedly alluding to/quoting the Founders. Bravo for waving the federalism banner- I personally found that to be the best part of the speech, when he said that us governors, like the Founders, understand that government closest to the people governs best. He also had a good line about how Republican health insurance reform proposals aren’t thousand page bills crafted behind closed doors that no one has bothered to read.
McDonnell's speech was free from the mudslinging and partisanship of Obama's address...and it was, mercifully, much shorter. It was upbeat, hopeful, and genuine. McDonnell definitely looks like a rising star in the party...and we sorely need those.
So how'd he do? Before getting into some specific things that caught my eye/ear, I'll provide some general, big-picture thoughts. It was well-delivered, as are most of the president's speeches, and he was far more passionate than he has often been over the past year- no doubt a calculated maneuver to offset the criticism that he is too detached, cold, and out-of-touch with ordinary Americans. Unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Barack Obama, an Ivy League-educated, elitist liberal constitutional law professor, has to make a serious effort to seem as if he empathizes with the plight of Americans who are jobless or struggling to make ends meet. Last night, I think he was fairly successful at that.
The speech was too long, and it was also too sharply partisan- especially from a man who promised "hope," a changed culture in Washington, and a nation not of blue and red states but of unified, purple ones. It's the ultimate irony/hypocrisy- this president constantly rails against the hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington DC and politics as usual, and then promptly begins his partisan sniping.
He couldn't resist repeatedly slamming the Bush administration (he never did it by naming "Bush," but instead kept talking about the mess he inherited/the failures of the "last 8 years"), a tactic that became stale and ineffective months ago. He won an election by doing it, but continuing in campaign mode has made this president seem petulant, petty, and unpresidential. It has to stop. Voters are tired of it, as Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts made clear.
On a side note, repeating this crap about the "last 8 years" drives me especially crazy since DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR THE LAST TWO. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their liberal minions in Congress passed the last two budgets, not George W. Bush. Obama, a former constitutional law professor (!) needs a basic civics lesson, so that he'll finally understand that it's Congress, not the President, that exclusively holds the power of the purse.
I had a Word Document open during the address last night and I typed out some notes as Obama spoke. Here are some of the points that I felt were important/interesting/ridiculous:
- Early on in the speech, the president said, ”I’ve never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight." It's a vapid, stupid, throwaway line...and, what's worse, it makes him seem far more out-of-touch than optimistic. Most Americans aren't nearly as sanguine about the prospects of economic revival as this president.
- Obama cited the "2 million jobs" that the "stimulus" saved...which is, as so many media outlets have showed, a completely made-up number. He claimed that "first responders" and "teachers" were among those whose jobs were saved...but that's at least deceptive if not untruthful. The vast majority of policemen, firefighters, and teachers weren't really going to lose their jobs without stimulus money. As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has astutely observed again and again, the stimulus money was actually used to paper over holes in state budgets for another year, saving useless bureaucratic jobs that ought to have been cut back. The stimulus allowed state and local governments to continue living lavishly instead of trimming the fat like many American families have had to do.
- Obama repeatedly presented himself as the "fighter"- and he reserved especially harsh words for the Democrat-controlled Senate. On several occasions, he urged the Senate to follow the House's lead in passing things like financial reform, comprehensive energy reform, etc.
- The president, unsurprisingly given his incredible hubris/arrogance, was unable to admit that the health care reform plan that he favors is opposed by a majority of Americans because it's a bad bill. Furthermore, it was absolutely disgusting that he took credit for ending the war in Iraq- first, because he couldn't bring himself to say we had WON, and second, because we've only been able to responsibly wind down US involvement thanks to the surge strategy implemented by President Bush- a policy that Senator/Candidate Obama vociferously opposed.
- I smiled when they panned to Senator McCain and you could see him mouth "Blame it on Bush" to the person sitting next to him after Obama launched into another one of his exhausting "we're in this mess because of the last 8 years" statements.
- Obama's remark about lobbyists not being appointed to administration posts was laugh-provoking. I was waiting for someone to shout "YOU LIE!" after he said it. Boy, it takes a healthy amount of chutzpah to stand up in front of Congress and the American people and just tell a bare-faced whopper of a lie.
- Perhaps the most interesting part of the address was, I thought, the moment at which President Obama openly scolded the Supreme Court for its recent ruling on campaign finance restrictions. With the justices seated right in front of him, it was uncomfortable and awkward to watch...and it certainly seemed inappropriate, given separation of powers and the role of the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law, to demagogue them like Obama did. It was even more revolting watching Senators like Chuck Schumer grin and applaud loudly right in the justices' ears from the row behind them. Ew. GOOD FOR SAM ALITO THOUGH- you could see him shake his head slightly and whisper "not true" when Obama made yet another inaccurate statement about the ruling (once again- come on Barack! You were a constitutional law expert supposedly!). Some will say Alito ought not have done this- but Obama and the Democrats who stood and applauded raucously are the ones in the wrong. It was a breach of decorum, and Obama owes the Court an apology- especially the 5 justices who issued the ruling (Kennedy, often the swing vote, wrote the majority decision).
- Obama spent far too little time on foreign affairs/fighting terrorism. After the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day bombing attempt, he owed it to the American people to offer a coherent defense of his administration's anti-terror policies. If he supports Attorney General Holder's policy of trying KSM in NYC- and he must because, after all, Barack Obama is the decider- then he should have defended it. Ditto closing Gitmo and moving terrorists to US soil. Ditto treating the undie-bomber as a criminal and Mirandizing him rather than treating him as an unlawful enemy combatant and interrogating him in a military setting to extract intelligence that could bolster homeland security and our efforts to disrupt terrorism abroad.
- His casual and unbelievably unspecific mentions of a) repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and b) the need to fix our broken immigration system were silly. Surely no one, not legislators, not the American people, honestly believes he cares a whit about these issues. The empty, tepid rhetorical support for these two agenda items certainly didn't help Obama with his party's base.
- Obama did a nice job injecting a little humor into the address, and he also finished strong with his "We don't quit, I won't quit" line.
So there are some of the parts of the speech that I highlighted as I watched.
What I did find a bit surprising was that there was certainly no move toward the center by the president. He's determined to keep on governing from the left, it appears, which must be making the Blue Dog Democrats squirm. Barack Obama realizes he's not on the ballot in 2010, and it looks like it'll take a disastrous midterm election (a la Clinton in '94) to force him to do something like Clinton's triangulation. That can't sit well with Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Co. But oh well. By not pivoting toward the center, Obama showed an extraordinary degree of defiance and a lot of egotism. He basically flipped Republicans, a number of Democrats, the entire Senate, and a majority of Americans the bird last night. If you don't like my policies, tough, you're getting them anyway, because I know what's best. It's quite an attitude- and one he's likely to pay for in 2010 and 2012, if he cares.
Oh, and one final thought: if the president really wants Americans to see him as a FIGHTER, why doesn't he start by vowing to fight the Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us as war criminals/unlawful combatants instead of common criminals entitled to the same rights as American citizens? Just askin'.
Finally- the Republican response by Bob McDonnell, the recently-elected governor of Virginia. It was nothing special, but of course much better than Bobby Jindal's rejoinder to the State of the Nation last year. McDonnell did what he had to do, and he did it quite well. Kudos to him for repeatedly alluding to/quoting the Founders. Bravo for waving the federalism banner- I personally found that to be the best part of the speech, when he said that us governors, like the Founders, understand that government closest to the people governs best. He also had a good line about how Republican health insurance reform proposals aren’t thousand page bills crafted behind closed doors that no one has bothered to read.
McDonnell's speech was free from the mudslinging and partisanship of Obama's address...and it was, mercifully, much shorter. It was upbeat, hopeful, and genuine. McDonnell definitely looks like a rising star in the party...and we sorely need those.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Why I'm a Republican
Generally speaking, political issues fall into three admittedly imprecise categories. They are as follows: 1) social/cultural/moral, 2) economic/fiscal, and 3) foreign policy/national security. While there are obvious problems with this overly simplistic mode of sorting each and every political issue into one of three groups, it works well enough for the purposes of this essay.
In the forefront of the first category, which I will henceforth refer to as “social issues” because that seems to be the most common label, are abortion and gay marriage. Other issues that would fall under this banner include gun control, immigration (legal and illegal), euthanasia, religious displays in the public sphere, legalization of marijuana, flag burning, and gays in the military, to name just a handful.
In the second category, we’re talking most obviously about issues like taxes, social welfare programs/entitlements, and health care. Debates over these things naturally require us to answer larger questions about how big our government ought to be and what sort of functions our government ought to perform. Thus, the economic/fiscal issues category necessarily includes the age old debate over what sorts of powers the federal government in Washington DC should have and what powers should be reserved to state and local governments.
In the third category, we’re confronted with questions of America’s proper role in the world and what sort of foreign policy our nation should pursue. Should we lean more toward interventionism, embracing our superpower status and aggressively pursuing our interests abroad, or should we shade toward isolationism? Should we preoccupy ourselves with multilateralism and seek the approval of other nations or be willing to “go it alone?” Questions of homeland security also comprise this category; for example, how much should government infringe upon our liberty in the name of national security?
The prior paragraphs are meant as a broad overview of the three categories, not an exhaustive list of issues.
It’s undoubtedly true that not every issue fits neatly into one of the three categories. Take, for instance, immigration. There are moral and cultural dimensions to the immigration issue- the debate over assimilation versus multiculturalism stands out in my mind. Should immigrants incorporate themselves into American society in such a way that they become Americans first and Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, etc. second? To put it succinctly, should we aspire to be a melting pot or a tossed salad?
The debate over illegal immigration touches on economic concerns as well. The idea that illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers bothers many of us, especially in the midst of an economic downturn that has caused rampant unemployment. And there is also undeniably a law and order element to the illegal immigration debate. Many see a tension: on the one hand, the United States is a compassionate nation and a nation of immigrants; on the other hand, we are a nation of laws and we must uphold them. Finally, as I have pointed out many times, a broken immigration system and porous borders are potentially devastating liabilities in the midst of a global war against terrorists, which makes immigration an issue with national security ramifications.
Some major political issues don’t really seem to fit neatly into any of the three categories. The best example I can think of is energy policy, which has quickly become a leading policy concern for both parties. You could make a strong case that it belongs in the second category, since cap-and-trade and green jobs programs are economic issues. But the goal of energy independence is also clearly related to national security/foreign policy, since it would end our reliance on other countries, many of them directly or indirectly hostile to the US, for our energy needs.
On the most basic level, I’m a Republican because I tend to agree with the Republican Party’s position on more of the issues. Of the three issue clusters I’ve laid out, I would say that I’m firmly in the Republican camp on two of them: economic/fiscal and foreign policy/national security. I believe strongly in the ideals that this country was founded upon: limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and equality of opportunity. A big government is inefficient, ineffective, expensive, inherently oppressive, and inevitably corrupt. I believe government should stick to its constitutional functions, allowing competition and innovation to flourish in the free-market system.
When it comes to the market, government ought to be a referee, not a player. Taxes should be low, and our tax dollars should go toward ensuring that government keeps individuals and their property secure. Government should not be engaged in the redistribution of wealth. I categorically reject the idea, espoused by liberal Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama, that there is a fixed pie of wealth for society to divide up. There is, in reality, an ever-expanding pie, if only we allow the free-market system to operate without excessive government meddling.
Granted, Republicans have been guilty in recent years of profligate spending and growing government. But the Democratic Party has been the party of Big Government from Woodrow Wilson up through FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama. As the Reagan years made clear, the Republican Party remains the most effective mechanism that limited government advocates have for gradually scaling back the size and scope of government. The party lost its way but hopefully got its wake-up call in 2006 and 2008.
Since government’s highest purpose is to protect individuals and their private property from harm or theft, I believe we should pursue policies at home and abroad that keep the homeland safe and advance our national interests- after all, that’s what other countries do. This means pursuing and defeating those individuals, groups, or nations that attack us, and doing it with energy and vigor. It means unashamedly looking out for Number One, even if that means ruffling some feathers around the globe, rather than kowtowing to the United Nations and allowing nations like Russia and China to hold our foreign policy hostage through the UN Security Council. I don’t believe in treating terrorists like common criminals or awarding them the full constitutional protections that Americans receive. I believe in treating Islamic terrorists hell-bent on slaughtering innocent Americans like the war criminals and unlawful enemy combatants that they are. We need to be vigilant at home and remember that the best defense in a good offense. Since 9/11, we’ve been fighting them overseas. If we stop doing that, we can expect to have to fight them here.
On the social/moral/cultural front, I would say that I only lean Republican, because my views are scattered. I disagree with the party’s position on gay marriage, for one. I personally find abortion to be an utterly repulsive practice, but I’m also sympathetic to some of the pro-choice arguments. Both of these issues should, as I have written elsewhere, be decided at the state level rather than the federal level…and it should be the elected branches of government, the state legislatures and governors, who make the call, not a small coterie of unaccountable, activist judges who believe it is their duty to legislate from the bench.
On the cultural side of things, I am an ardent proponent of “the melting pot” conception of America. If you come to America, you ought to learn English and assimilate yourself into American culture. After all, what is American culture if not a whole host of diverse cultures blended into one unique mixture? We are a nation of immigrants, and that has been a consistent source of strength throughout our history. But our country is great because we are all, regardless of our heritage, our accent, or our country of origin, unified by this simple idea: we are, above all, Americans.
On the subject of the proper place for religion in our society, I believe in what the Founders professed: that the government ought to establish no official state religion, and that people ought to enjoy the freedom to worship whatever God or gods they choose without fear of persecution so long as they aren’t hurting anyone. But that doesn’t mean we should do silly things like remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance or take the 10 Commandments out of our courthouses. The Judeo-Christian tradition is something to celebrate and be proud of, regardless of one’s personal religious beliefs. Judeo-Christian values have made our nation the freest, most prosperous, and most just nation on the face of the earth, and for this we owe a debt of gratitude.
My outlook on government and my political views derive from my fundamental belief in the bedrock principles that this nation was founded upon. Government should do a few things and do them very well instead of doing a bunch of things and doing them poorly, at great taxpayer expense. It’s important to remember that government is indeed capable of operating as a force for good. Demonizing government across the board is as baseless and it is useless. But criticizing the government and imploring our leaders to do better is a patriotic duty.
I’m a Republican. I’m proud of it. And I steadfastly believe that the Republican Party is our best hope and the only vehicle by which we can make our government work better going forward in the 21st century.
In the forefront of the first category, which I will henceforth refer to as “social issues” because that seems to be the most common label, are abortion and gay marriage. Other issues that would fall under this banner include gun control, immigration (legal and illegal), euthanasia, religious displays in the public sphere, legalization of marijuana, flag burning, and gays in the military, to name just a handful.
In the second category, we’re talking most obviously about issues like taxes, social welfare programs/entitlements, and health care. Debates over these things naturally require us to answer larger questions about how big our government ought to be and what sort of functions our government ought to perform. Thus, the economic/fiscal issues category necessarily includes the age old debate over what sorts of powers the federal government in Washington DC should have and what powers should be reserved to state and local governments.
In the third category, we’re confronted with questions of America’s proper role in the world and what sort of foreign policy our nation should pursue. Should we lean more toward interventionism, embracing our superpower status and aggressively pursuing our interests abroad, or should we shade toward isolationism? Should we preoccupy ourselves with multilateralism and seek the approval of other nations or be willing to “go it alone?” Questions of homeland security also comprise this category; for example, how much should government infringe upon our liberty in the name of national security?
The prior paragraphs are meant as a broad overview of the three categories, not an exhaustive list of issues.
It’s undoubtedly true that not every issue fits neatly into one of the three categories. Take, for instance, immigration. There are moral and cultural dimensions to the immigration issue- the debate over assimilation versus multiculturalism stands out in my mind. Should immigrants incorporate themselves into American society in such a way that they become Americans first and Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, etc. second? To put it succinctly, should we aspire to be a melting pot or a tossed salad?
The debate over illegal immigration touches on economic concerns as well. The idea that illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers bothers many of us, especially in the midst of an economic downturn that has caused rampant unemployment. And there is also undeniably a law and order element to the illegal immigration debate. Many see a tension: on the one hand, the United States is a compassionate nation and a nation of immigrants; on the other hand, we are a nation of laws and we must uphold them. Finally, as I have pointed out many times, a broken immigration system and porous borders are potentially devastating liabilities in the midst of a global war against terrorists, which makes immigration an issue with national security ramifications.
Some major political issues don’t really seem to fit neatly into any of the three categories. The best example I can think of is energy policy, which has quickly become a leading policy concern for both parties. You could make a strong case that it belongs in the second category, since cap-and-trade and green jobs programs are economic issues. But the goal of energy independence is also clearly related to national security/foreign policy, since it would end our reliance on other countries, many of them directly or indirectly hostile to the US, for our energy needs.
On the most basic level, I’m a Republican because I tend to agree with the Republican Party’s position on more of the issues. Of the three issue clusters I’ve laid out, I would say that I’m firmly in the Republican camp on two of them: economic/fiscal and foreign policy/national security. I believe strongly in the ideals that this country was founded upon: limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and equality of opportunity. A big government is inefficient, ineffective, expensive, inherently oppressive, and inevitably corrupt. I believe government should stick to its constitutional functions, allowing competition and innovation to flourish in the free-market system.
When it comes to the market, government ought to be a referee, not a player. Taxes should be low, and our tax dollars should go toward ensuring that government keeps individuals and their property secure. Government should not be engaged in the redistribution of wealth. I categorically reject the idea, espoused by liberal Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama, that there is a fixed pie of wealth for society to divide up. There is, in reality, an ever-expanding pie, if only we allow the free-market system to operate without excessive government meddling.
Granted, Republicans have been guilty in recent years of profligate spending and growing government. But the Democratic Party has been the party of Big Government from Woodrow Wilson up through FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama. As the Reagan years made clear, the Republican Party remains the most effective mechanism that limited government advocates have for gradually scaling back the size and scope of government. The party lost its way but hopefully got its wake-up call in 2006 and 2008.
Since government’s highest purpose is to protect individuals and their private property from harm or theft, I believe we should pursue policies at home and abroad that keep the homeland safe and advance our national interests- after all, that’s what other countries do. This means pursuing and defeating those individuals, groups, or nations that attack us, and doing it with energy and vigor. It means unashamedly looking out for Number One, even if that means ruffling some feathers around the globe, rather than kowtowing to the United Nations and allowing nations like Russia and China to hold our foreign policy hostage through the UN Security Council. I don’t believe in treating terrorists like common criminals or awarding them the full constitutional protections that Americans receive. I believe in treating Islamic terrorists hell-bent on slaughtering innocent Americans like the war criminals and unlawful enemy combatants that they are. We need to be vigilant at home and remember that the best defense in a good offense. Since 9/11, we’ve been fighting them overseas. If we stop doing that, we can expect to have to fight them here.
On the social/moral/cultural front, I would say that I only lean Republican, because my views are scattered. I disagree with the party’s position on gay marriage, for one. I personally find abortion to be an utterly repulsive practice, but I’m also sympathetic to some of the pro-choice arguments. Both of these issues should, as I have written elsewhere, be decided at the state level rather than the federal level…and it should be the elected branches of government, the state legislatures and governors, who make the call, not a small coterie of unaccountable, activist judges who believe it is their duty to legislate from the bench.
On the cultural side of things, I am an ardent proponent of “the melting pot” conception of America. If you come to America, you ought to learn English and assimilate yourself into American culture. After all, what is American culture if not a whole host of diverse cultures blended into one unique mixture? We are a nation of immigrants, and that has been a consistent source of strength throughout our history. But our country is great because we are all, regardless of our heritage, our accent, or our country of origin, unified by this simple idea: we are, above all, Americans.
On the subject of the proper place for religion in our society, I believe in what the Founders professed: that the government ought to establish no official state religion, and that people ought to enjoy the freedom to worship whatever God or gods they choose without fear of persecution so long as they aren’t hurting anyone. But that doesn’t mean we should do silly things like remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance or take the 10 Commandments out of our courthouses. The Judeo-Christian tradition is something to celebrate and be proud of, regardless of one’s personal religious beliefs. Judeo-Christian values have made our nation the freest, most prosperous, and most just nation on the face of the earth, and for this we owe a debt of gratitude.
My outlook on government and my political views derive from my fundamental belief in the bedrock principles that this nation was founded upon. Government should do a few things and do them very well instead of doing a bunch of things and doing them poorly, at great taxpayer expense. It’s important to remember that government is indeed capable of operating as a force for good. Demonizing government across the board is as baseless and it is useless. But criticizing the government and imploring our leaders to do better is a patriotic duty.
I’m a Republican. I’m proud of it. And I steadfastly believe that the Republican Party is our best hope and the only vehicle by which we can make our government work better going forward in the 21st century.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead
No, not Nancy Pelosi. The witch, in this case, is the Democrats' health care reform bill.
Maybe we should say, Ping Pong, The Monstrosity is Dead. Ping pong is, of course, the strategy that the Democrats were going to use to pass the bill without having to go through the formal conference committee procedure. But now, according to a blog post by Allahpundit over at HotAir, some influential House liberals have just informed Nancy P that they won't vote for the Senate bill. With that option for passing a health care bill off the table, and with Democrats refusing to ram a bill through before Scott Brown can be seated...it looks like we've, some way, somehow, miraculously dodged what seemed to be inevitable just a week ago.
Polls have shown for months now that the majority of Americans don't like either the House or the Senate bill. They hate what's in it, they don't like the cost of it, and they loathe the backroom bribes (e.g. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback") and closed door meetings that got it passed.
Now, the voters have spoken through the ballot box as well as the public opinion polls.
So what's next? Beats me. See, we DO need genuine health care reform that controls costs and increases consumer choice. But we DON'T need the awful Obama plan, or anything resembling it. We must start from square one, and it now looks like that's what's going to happen.
So we've been saved from an ill-advised attempt to reform the health care system. We're fortunate. Now it's time to elect some legislators in November who will pursue true reforms that the American people actually want.
Maybe we should say, Ping Pong, The Monstrosity is Dead. Ping pong is, of course, the strategy that the Democrats were going to use to pass the bill without having to go through the formal conference committee procedure. But now, according to a blog post by Allahpundit over at HotAir, some influential House liberals have just informed Nancy P that they won't vote for the Senate bill. With that option for passing a health care bill off the table, and with Democrats refusing to ram a bill through before Scott Brown can be seated...it looks like we've, some way, somehow, miraculously dodged what seemed to be inevitable just a week ago.
Polls have shown for months now that the majority of Americans don't like either the House or the Senate bill. They hate what's in it, they don't like the cost of it, and they loathe the backroom bribes (e.g. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback") and closed door meetings that got it passed.
Now, the voters have spoken through the ballot box as well as the public opinion polls.
So what's next? Beats me. See, we DO need genuine health care reform that controls costs and increases consumer choice. But we DON'T need the awful Obama plan, or anything resembling it. We must start from square one, and it now looks like that's what's going to happen.
So we've been saved from an ill-advised attempt to reform the health care system. We're fortunate. Now it's time to elect some legislators in November who will pursue true reforms that the American people actually want.
What Does Scott Brown's Victory Mean?
Yesterday, Republicans, independents, and yes, even a bunch of moderate Democrats joined forces in, of all places, Massachusetts, sending Republican Scott Brown to the US Senate to fill the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy.
Brown's victory has exponentially increased the enthusiasm among conservatives and moderates that first manifested itself in the Virginia and New Jersey state elections two months ago. In the swing state of Virginia, a state that Barack Obama won in 2008, Republican Bob McDonnell crushed Democrat Creigh Deeds in the race for governor by running an upbeat campaign that deemphasized social issues and highlighted economic/fiscal ones- McDonnell's winning campaign slogan was "Bob for Jobs." McDonnell won the independent vote overwhelmingly. In New Jersey, one of the most reliably blue states in the country, Republican Chris Christie beat the Obama-supported incumbent Democrat John Corzine. While Christie's campaign was less focused and coherent than McDonnell's masterpiece, he too captured the bulk of independent voters.
Many Democrats brushed off these two losses as state elections that revolved around local issues. They emphatically denied that the mass migration of independents who backed Obama in '08 but Republicans in '09 had anything to do with voter discontent over the agenda being pursued by Obama and congressional Democrats. Rather than interpreting these elections as referendums or a wake-up call to move back toward the center, Obama-Pelosi-Reid continued to push an extremely unpopular disaster of a health care reform bill through Congress.
The result? The bluest state in the nation, a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate in almost 40 years, just sent a hitherto unknown Republican state senator to Washington DC to fill the Senate seat formerly occupied by the foremost supporter of a government-run health care system for America. And the man who won, Scott Brown, campaigned vigorously on the message that if elected, he would do everything in his power to stop the current health care reform bill in its tracks and force Congress and the President to start from scratch.
So what does Scott Brown's victory mean? It means even in the liberal stronghold that is the state of Massachusetts, there are a whole lot of people who dislike the current health care reform proposal and resent the way in which it has been crafted- written behind closed doors by a small, hyper-partisan cadre of out-of-touch legislators and voted on in the dead of night.
More broadly, Brown's improbable triumph signals widespread discontent with the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton became the first Democratic president to win re-election since FDR because he flatly refused to be a captive of the left-wing of his party. Clinton staked out moderate positions on social issues, but most importantly, he worked for a balanced budget and welfare reform. He famously proclaimed that "the era of big government is over." This fiscally responsible streak is sorely lacking in today's Democratic congressional leadership and the Obama administration. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi might agree that "the era of big government is over," but only if the next line is "the era of ENORMOUS government has begun."
This brings me to my final point. Scott Brown holds moderate-to-liberal positions on social issues. Virginia governor Bob McDonnell is an ardent social conservative. But they have lots in common. They're both Republicans, they both ran excellent campaigns in which they connected with independent voters, rallied the base, and flipped some Democrats, and, most significantly, they are both FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. They repeated their beliefs in limited government, lower taxes, and less spending, and they won by contrasting themselves to the tax and spend liberals in Congress and the White House.
As we move forward to the midterm elections in 2010 and the presidential election in 2012, Republicans should keep Bob McDonnell and Scott Brown in mind. There is room in the Republican tent for social liberals, social moderates, and social conservatives. But there is no more room for reckless spenders or big-government types masquerading as conservatives. Republicans have found the set of issues that win across a large segment of the American political spectrum- fiscal responsibility, limited government, lower taxes. These issues are more likely to unite people, whereas the social issues tend to be more divisive.
Just 20% of Americans call themselves liberal, according to a recent Gallup poll. That number is essentially unchanged since the 1990's. 40% call themselves conservative, and 36% identify themselves as moderates. Those numbers speak volumes about why President Obama's approval ratings are in a dive, why independents are deserting the Democrats in droves, even in Massachusetts, and why the Republican Party is beginning its resurgence so quickly.
But this time around, Republicans need to mean it. No more reckless spending, no more earmarks, no more backroom bribes. Time to get serious, develop an agenda, run on it in 2010 and 2012, and then govern.
Brown's victory has exponentially increased the enthusiasm among conservatives and moderates that first manifested itself in the Virginia and New Jersey state elections two months ago. In the swing state of Virginia, a state that Barack Obama won in 2008, Republican Bob McDonnell crushed Democrat Creigh Deeds in the race for governor by running an upbeat campaign that deemphasized social issues and highlighted economic/fiscal ones- McDonnell's winning campaign slogan was "Bob for Jobs." McDonnell won the independent vote overwhelmingly. In New Jersey, one of the most reliably blue states in the country, Republican Chris Christie beat the Obama-supported incumbent Democrat John Corzine. While Christie's campaign was less focused and coherent than McDonnell's masterpiece, he too captured the bulk of independent voters.
Many Democrats brushed off these two losses as state elections that revolved around local issues. They emphatically denied that the mass migration of independents who backed Obama in '08 but Republicans in '09 had anything to do with voter discontent over the agenda being pursued by Obama and congressional Democrats. Rather than interpreting these elections as referendums or a wake-up call to move back toward the center, Obama-Pelosi-Reid continued to push an extremely unpopular disaster of a health care reform bill through Congress.
The result? The bluest state in the nation, a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate in almost 40 years, just sent a hitherto unknown Republican state senator to Washington DC to fill the Senate seat formerly occupied by the foremost supporter of a government-run health care system for America. And the man who won, Scott Brown, campaigned vigorously on the message that if elected, he would do everything in his power to stop the current health care reform bill in its tracks and force Congress and the President to start from scratch.
So what does Scott Brown's victory mean? It means even in the liberal stronghold that is the state of Massachusetts, there are a whole lot of people who dislike the current health care reform proposal and resent the way in which it has been crafted- written behind closed doors by a small, hyper-partisan cadre of out-of-touch legislators and voted on in the dead of night.
More broadly, Brown's improbable triumph signals widespread discontent with the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton became the first Democratic president to win re-election since FDR because he flatly refused to be a captive of the left-wing of his party. Clinton staked out moderate positions on social issues, but most importantly, he worked for a balanced budget and welfare reform. He famously proclaimed that "the era of big government is over." This fiscally responsible streak is sorely lacking in today's Democratic congressional leadership and the Obama administration. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi might agree that "the era of big government is over," but only if the next line is "the era of ENORMOUS government has begun."
This brings me to my final point. Scott Brown holds moderate-to-liberal positions on social issues. Virginia governor Bob McDonnell is an ardent social conservative. But they have lots in common. They're both Republicans, they both ran excellent campaigns in which they connected with independent voters, rallied the base, and flipped some Democrats, and, most significantly, they are both FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. They repeated their beliefs in limited government, lower taxes, and less spending, and they won by contrasting themselves to the tax and spend liberals in Congress and the White House.
As we move forward to the midterm elections in 2010 and the presidential election in 2012, Republicans should keep Bob McDonnell and Scott Brown in mind. There is room in the Republican tent for social liberals, social moderates, and social conservatives. But there is no more room for reckless spenders or big-government types masquerading as conservatives. Republicans have found the set of issues that win across a large segment of the American political spectrum- fiscal responsibility, limited government, lower taxes. These issues are more likely to unite people, whereas the social issues tend to be more divisive.
Just 20% of Americans call themselves liberal, according to a recent Gallup poll. That number is essentially unchanged since the 1990's. 40% call themselves conservative, and 36% identify themselves as moderates. Those numbers speak volumes about why President Obama's approval ratings are in a dive, why independents are deserting the Democrats in droves, even in Massachusetts, and why the Republican Party is beginning its resurgence so quickly.
But this time around, Republicans need to mean it. No more reckless spending, no more earmarks, no more backroom bribes. Time to get serious, develop an agenda, run on it in 2010 and 2012, and then govern.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
SCOTT BROWN!
I'm in no mood to write a thoughtful blog post right now. But surely this historic evening calls for a quick one...
WOW. Incredible. Obama-Pelosi-Reid, look out. The American people are fed up. None of you are safe. Either start pushing an agenda that Americans support, or prepare to meet the same fate as the Democrat in MASSACHUSETTS. That's right, Massachusetts.
I am far too filled with glee over this election to offer any more thoughts for now...maybe tomorrow. What a night! Celebrate!
The people have spoken.
WOW. Incredible. Obama-Pelosi-Reid, look out. The American people are fed up. None of you are safe. Either start pushing an agenda that Americans support, or prepare to meet the same fate as the Democrat in MASSACHUSETTS. That's right, Massachusetts.
I am far too filled with glee over this election to offer any more thoughts for now...maybe tomorrow. What a night! Celebrate!
The people have spoken.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Relax, Silly Americans...You're Gonna Love This!
Today, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat from Washington D.C., had this to say in response to John King's question about whether a Republican victory in the special Senate election in Massachusetts tomorrow should affect the pace or the content of the health care debate/legislation in Congress:
"I don't think you should rush, but I don't think you should put aside regular order either. If we're gonna finish, we shouldn't wait for somebody to come and kill it, uh, particularly when you consider that once the American people get to know what's in this bill and how it affects them, and all of the negative notions can be answered by what's on paper, then I think you will see things turn around. So I don't think we owe the people of Massachusetts if they change a senator to say, alright, we gonna wait until you get here and we're not gonna finish our business."
I suppose this is old news by now, but it's worth pointing out each and every time you hear it because it's so important. The Democratic Party's health care reform efforts are, like every liberal or "progressive" big government-oriented policy goal, premised on one basic proposition: that the experts know what's best for you, and so you should just shut up and let them insert themselves into every nook and cranny of your life for the good of society.
This attitude, so prevalent on the Left in the academy and the media, has permeated the halls of Congress, and it has reared its ugly head time and again during the health care reform debate. This attitude is firmly ensconced in the White House too. Barack Obama is the consummate liberal elite, a self-assured, Ivy League-educated "intellectual" who is simply more "enlightened" than his predecessor and the vast majority of Americans.
In Eleanor Holmes Norton's remarks that I quoted above, you have a perfect example of the Leftist mindset. The key line is, of course, her statement that "once the American people get to know what's in this bill...you will see things turn around." Think about the absurdity of this remark. After 6 months of the health care debate being front and center in American politics, Norton is claiming that the bill is unpopular because...we don't know what's in the bill???
Norton is not completely off-base on one point. The legislation in Congress is ridiculously complex and far too long. But who wrote the bill? The Democrats, without any substantive Republican input. Could it be, Eleanor, that voters object to a 2,000 page monstrosity that many legislators won't even read being forced down their throats? GASP.
And let's be serious. Barack Obama is supposedly a gifted orator/communicator, and he occupies the bully pulpit. He has had access to mostly sympathetic if not outright fawning coverage from a number of media outlets. President Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have had ample opportunity to make a case for their version of health care reform over the past few months. And, according to every poll, they have failed miserably. Voters don't think it's going to improve the quality of care, they think it'll make it worse. Voters don't believe the Democrats' proposal will reduce the deficit, they think it will make it even bigger. Voters don't buy the idea that costs will decline, they're convinced their premiums will go up.
But see, the committed Lefties don't care what the polls say. They don't care that fewer than 40% of Americans support the reform bill while almost 60% oppose it. Because, after all, THEY know what's best, not YOU. They know best how to spend your money, not you. They aren't interested in empowering individuals or expanding the sphere of liberty...they're intent on enfeebling individuals and shrinking the sphere of liberty. It's about power, it's about control, it's about regulating more and more and more, until there's nothing left to regulate. If they get health care, it's on to cap and trade...where lawmakers and bureaucrats will tell you how much energy you can and can't use in your home, what sort of car you can and can't drive, what sort of light bulbs you can and can't buy. For the Left, health care is a stocking stuffer compared to the gigantic Christmas present that is energy regulation.
So, when voters in Massachusetts go to the polls tomorrow, they should keep Eleanor Holmes Norton's words in mind. Liberal Democrats, the core of the Democratic Party, are going to do everything in their power to pass this bill, regardless of the election's outcome. But that doesn't mean voters should be demoralized. Far from it. If Scott Brown wins tomorrow, it will be the greatest upset in modern American political history- and his victory will be seen as a repudiation of Obama's first year in office and the course that he and congressional Democrats have charted for America. Committed Leftists like Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi will have no qualms about ignoring the verdict rendered by the angry, unenlightened, unwashed masses in Massachusetts. But the shock waves of a Brown win would reverberate in a big way, perhaps causing already skittish moderate Democrats to defect on health care, cap and trade, etc.
If the improbable happens tomorrow night in Massachusetts, it will be the work of the American people, ordinary citizens getting involved and donating their precious time and money during tough economic times that brought it about. Hopefully, tomorrow, we'll have a victory. But either way, the backlash has begun. Look out Lefties.
"I don't think you should rush, but I don't think you should put aside regular order either. If we're gonna finish, we shouldn't wait for somebody to come and kill it, uh, particularly when you consider that once the American people get to know what's in this bill and how it affects them, and all of the negative notions can be answered by what's on paper, then I think you will see things turn around. So I don't think we owe the people of Massachusetts if they change a senator to say, alright, we gonna wait until you get here and we're not gonna finish our business."
I suppose this is old news by now, but it's worth pointing out each and every time you hear it because it's so important. The Democratic Party's health care reform efforts are, like every liberal or "progressive" big government-oriented policy goal, premised on one basic proposition: that the experts know what's best for you, and so you should just shut up and let them insert themselves into every nook and cranny of your life for the good of society.
This attitude, so prevalent on the Left in the academy and the media, has permeated the halls of Congress, and it has reared its ugly head time and again during the health care reform debate. This attitude is firmly ensconced in the White House too. Barack Obama is the consummate liberal elite, a self-assured, Ivy League-educated "intellectual" who is simply more "enlightened" than his predecessor and the vast majority of Americans.
In Eleanor Holmes Norton's remarks that I quoted above, you have a perfect example of the Leftist mindset. The key line is, of course, her statement that "once the American people get to know what's in this bill...you will see things turn around." Think about the absurdity of this remark. After 6 months of the health care debate being front and center in American politics, Norton is claiming that the bill is unpopular because...we don't know what's in the bill???
Norton is not completely off-base on one point. The legislation in Congress is ridiculously complex and far too long. But who wrote the bill? The Democrats, without any substantive Republican input. Could it be, Eleanor, that voters object to a 2,000 page monstrosity that many legislators won't even read being forced down their throats? GASP.
And let's be serious. Barack Obama is supposedly a gifted orator/communicator, and he occupies the bully pulpit. He has had access to mostly sympathetic if not outright fawning coverage from a number of media outlets. President Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have had ample opportunity to make a case for their version of health care reform over the past few months. And, according to every poll, they have failed miserably. Voters don't think it's going to improve the quality of care, they think it'll make it worse. Voters don't believe the Democrats' proposal will reduce the deficit, they think it will make it even bigger. Voters don't buy the idea that costs will decline, they're convinced their premiums will go up.
But see, the committed Lefties don't care what the polls say. They don't care that fewer than 40% of Americans support the reform bill while almost 60% oppose it. Because, after all, THEY know what's best, not YOU. They know best how to spend your money, not you. They aren't interested in empowering individuals or expanding the sphere of liberty...they're intent on enfeebling individuals and shrinking the sphere of liberty. It's about power, it's about control, it's about regulating more and more and more, until there's nothing left to regulate. If they get health care, it's on to cap and trade...where lawmakers and bureaucrats will tell you how much energy you can and can't use in your home, what sort of car you can and can't drive, what sort of light bulbs you can and can't buy. For the Left, health care is a stocking stuffer compared to the gigantic Christmas present that is energy regulation.
So, when voters in Massachusetts go to the polls tomorrow, they should keep Eleanor Holmes Norton's words in mind. Liberal Democrats, the core of the Democratic Party, are going to do everything in their power to pass this bill, regardless of the election's outcome. But that doesn't mean voters should be demoralized. Far from it. If Scott Brown wins tomorrow, it will be the greatest upset in modern American political history- and his victory will be seen as a repudiation of Obama's first year in office and the course that he and congressional Democrats have charted for America. Committed Leftists like Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi will have no qualms about ignoring the verdict rendered by the angry, unenlightened, unwashed masses in Massachusetts. But the shock waves of a Brown win would reverberate in a big way, perhaps causing already skittish moderate Democrats to defect on health care, cap and trade, etc.
If the improbable happens tomorrow night in Massachusetts, it will be the work of the American people, ordinary citizens getting involved and donating their precious time and money during tough economic times that brought it about. Hopefully, tomorrow, we'll have a victory. But either way, the backlash has begun. Look out Lefties.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Miracle in Massachusetts?
With just two days left until the special Senate election in Massachusetts for the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, almost every poll I've seen (including both candidates' internal polls) shows the Republican Scott Brown up by 2 or 3 points (or more).
This is, needless to say, absolutely remarkable. After all, this is Massachusetts...the bluest state in the Union, a liberal Democratic stronghold for decades. Every six years, the people of Massachusetts send the hapless John Kerry and, until his death, sent Teddy Kennedy to the Senate...simply because of the "D" next to their names.
Yet, here we are, just 14 months after Barack Obama's historic election to the presidency (in which he won 62% of the vote in Massachusetts), and a virtually unknown state senator named Scott Brown is poised to give Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley the electoral scare of her life...or, even more improbably, actually WIN this election.
So what happened? How could this chain of events be possible so soon after Obama's election?
If you listen to a Democrat, they'll tell you this election has nothing to do with Barack Obama or the Democratic Party's national agenda. Just like the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey in November, Democrats will spin this as a "state" or "local" race rather than a referendum on the Democratic agenda. They are, of course, completely wrong. This race has almost everything to do with the Democratic overreach of the past year, most notably on health care.
Martha Coakley is undoubtedly an awful candidate, as Democrats are already pointing out as they brace themselves for an election loss that seemed absolutely inconceivable just a few weeks ago. But let's be serious- in a state like Massachusetts, even awful candidates win when they have a D next to their name. No, the answer to why Scott Brown may very well win this thing, against all odds, lies squarely upon the clear fact that most Americans completely reject the Left's agenda, as embodied by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate.
Think about it. Everyone knows that Scott Brown would become the 41st Republican vote in the United States Senate if he were to win this race...and that means, as Scott Brown has repeatedly pointed out, that he would have the power to stop the health care bill in the Senate (provided it doesn't get rammed through before he is seated). So the voters of Massachusetts, if they favor the Democrats' legislation, will vote for Coakley- even if she's not their ideal candidate. The fact that independents are breaking overwhelmingly for Brown and a sizable minority of Democrats may join them shows just how disenchanted even MASSACHUSETTS residents are with DemCare.
And it's not just health care. It's the budget-busting, profligate spending of Obama-Pelosi-Reid...whether you look at the $787 billion failure known as the stimulus bill, the disastrous cap and trade legislation, or the health care bill. Voters are fed up with government forcing us to live beyond our means. Voters are tired of out-of-touch politicians and faceless bureaucrats taking more and more of their hard-earned dollars and pouring them into expensive, inefficient government programs.
It reminds me of Pac-Man. Ms. Pac-Man is Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Pac-Man is Harry Reid...and they just keep moving to and fro, gobbling up the pellets. The pellets could be your money. Or they could be portions of the private sector, being subjugated by the government and brought under the umbrella of the public sector. Either way, the pellets are being gobbled up, and fast.
But there is hope. After all, in the classic arcade game, Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man aren't able to gorge themselves on pellets with impunity. After a little while, the ghosts appear...and Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man are chased around and hounded...and, if the ghosts are effective enough, they are eventually extinguished. Game Over, the screen flashes.
Well, Scott Brown is one of the ghosts. We have a long way to go, no doubt, but the elections in Virginia and New Jersey, combined with the events unfolding in Massachusetts, make one thing clear: the American people have had enough. The liberal Democratic agenda simply does not have majority support in what remains a center-right nation. Americans are angry, they are upset that Obama-Pelosi-Reid continue to pursue policies that WE DON'T SUPPORT.
Game over.
This is, needless to say, absolutely remarkable. After all, this is Massachusetts...the bluest state in the Union, a liberal Democratic stronghold for decades. Every six years, the people of Massachusetts send the hapless John Kerry and, until his death, sent Teddy Kennedy to the Senate...simply because of the "D" next to their names.
Yet, here we are, just 14 months after Barack Obama's historic election to the presidency (in which he won 62% of the vote in Massachusetts), and a virtually unknown state senator named Scott Brown is poised to give Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley the electoral scare of her life...or, even more improbably, actually WIN this election.
So what happened? How could this chain of events be possible so soon after Obama's election?
If you listen to a Democrat, they'll tell you this election has nothing to do with Barack Obama or the Democratic Party's national agenda. Just like the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey in November, Democrats will spin this as a "state" or "local" race rather than a referendum on the Democratic agenda. They are, of course, completely wrong. This race has almost everything to do with the Democratic overreach of the past year, most notably on health care.
Martha Coakley is undoubtedly an awful candidate, as Democrats are already pointing out as they brace themselves for an election loss that seemed absolutely inconceivable just a few weeks ago. But let's be serious- in a state like Massachusetts, even awful candidates win when they have a D next to their name. No, the answer to why Scott Brown may very well win this thing, against all odds, lies squarely upon the clear fact that most Americans completely reject the Left's agenda, as embodied by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate.
Think about it. Everyone knows that Scott Brown would become the 41st Republican vote in the United States Senate if he were to win this race...and that means, as Scott Brown has repeatedly pointed out, that he would have the power to stop the health care bill in the Senate (provided it doesn't get rammed through before he is seated). So the voters of Massachusetts, if they favor the Democrats' legislation, will vote for Coakley- even if she's not their ideal candidate. The fact that independents are breaking overwhelmingly for Brown and a sizable minority of Democrats may join them shows just how disenchanted even MASSACHUSETTS residents are with DemCare.
And it's not just health care. It's the budget-busting, profligate spending of Obama-Pelosi-Reid...whether you look at the $787 billion failure known as the stimulus bill, the disastrous cap and trade legislation, or the health care bill. Voters are fed up with government forcing us to live beyond our means. Voters are tired of out-of-touch politicians and faceless bureaucrats taking more and more of their hard-earned dollars and pouring them into expensive, inefficient government programs.
It reminds me of Pac-Man. Ms. Pac-Man is Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Pac-Man is Harry Reid...and they just keep moving to and fro, gobbling up the pellets. The pellets could be your money. Or they could be portions of the private sector, being subjugated by the government and brought under the umbrella of the public sector. Either way, the pellets are being gobbled up, and fast.
But there is hope. After all, in the classic arcade game, Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man aren't able to gorge themselves on pellets with impunity. After a little while, the ghosts appear...and Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man are chased around and hounded...and, if the ghosts are effective enough, they are eventually extinguished. Game Over, the screen flashes.
Well, Scott Brown is one of the ghosts. We have a long way to go, no doubt, but the elections in Virginia and New Jersey, combined with the events unfolding in Massachusetts, make one thing clear: the American people have had enough. The liberal Democratic agenda simply does not have majority support in what remains a center-right nation. Americans are angry, they are upset that Obama-Pelosi-Reid continue to pursue policies that WE DON'T SUPPORT.
Game over.
Monday, January 11, 2010
So Much For Stimulus...
The AP has an important article out today that highlights the abject failure of President Obama and the Democrats' so-called "stimulus plan." According to the AP, hardly a bastion of conservative opinion, "A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Barack Obama's first stimulus has had no effect on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an 'urgent need to accelerate job growth.'"
What a shocker. The Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate got it wrong again. They jammed through an ill-advised bill that was supposedly going to jump-start the economy. The president himself doled out a healthy dose of fear-mongering, brazenly claiming that if the bill passed ASAP, we might see unemployment peak at only 8%, but if it didn't, we'd see employment hit double digits. Well, guess what? The $787 billion of pork got rammed down the throats of the American people by the Democrats, and unemployment STILL hit double digits.
All the talk about "shovel-ready" projects that would stimulate employment has turned out to be false. All the so-called "stimulus" did was 1) line the pockets of special interest groups that call the Democratic party home and 2) allow state governments to paper over the massive holes in their budget for another year- meaning that when the well dries up, those state governments will still be in dire straits, since they haven't been forced to make difficult decisions about raising taxes and/or cutting spending.
And now, with its many failures well-documented by, of all media outlets, the Associated Press, the administration and its congressional cohorts want to...TRY IT AGAIN? Only in Washington DC is the solution to a complete failure to simply repeat the same steps but pour in more money. We see it time and again- on education reform, for example- that no matter how many times government is definitively shown to be the problem and NOT the solution, politicians turn to, of all things, MORE government. It's insanity.
Those of us who like our government small and its scope limited warned all along that the "stimulus" bill was nothing of the sort. But Barack/Nancy/Harry knew best. After all, as they pointed out, elections have consequences- it's their turn to govern (ruin?) the country. The stimulus legislation was just another in a long line of examples of the big-government liberal philosophy: government, not individuals, knows what's best for America. Government ought to tell us how to spend our money, government ought to intervene in the free market, government ought to tell us what health care plan we must purchase. Individuals like you and me are too naive, too stupid, too unenlightened to make choices about the way we wish to live and how we wish spend our hard-earned money, so a bunch of bureaucrats need to do it for us.
Welcome to the era of the nanny state.
What a shocker. The Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate got it wrong again. They jammed through an ill-advised bill that was supposedly going to jump-start the economy. The president himself doled out a healthy dose of fear-mongering, brazenly claiming that if the bill passed ASAP, we might see unemployment peak at only 8%, but if it didn't, we'd see employment hit double digits. Well, guess what? The $787 billion of pork got rammed down the throats of the American people by the Democrats, and unemployment STILL hit double digits.
All the talk about "shovel-ready" projects that would stimulate employment has turned out to be false. All the so-called "stimulus" did was 1) line the pockets of special interest groups that call the Democratic party home and 2) allow state governments to paper over the massive holes in their budget for another year- meaning that when the well dries up, those state governments will still be in dire straits, since they haven't been forced to make difficult decisions about raising taxes and/or cutting spending.
And now, with its many failures well-documented by, of all media outlets, the Associated Press, the administration and its congressional cohorts want to...TRY IT AGAIN? Only in Washington DC is the solution to a complete failure to simply repeat the same steps but pour in more money. We see it time and again- on education reform, for example- that no matter how many times government is definitively shown to be the problem and NOT the solution, politicians turn to, of all things, MORE government. It's insanity.
Those of us who like our government small and its scope limited warned all along that the "stimulus" bill was nothing of the sort. But Barack/Nancy/Harry knew best. After all, as they pointed out, elections have consequences- it's their turn to govern (ruin?) the country. The stimulus legislation was just another in a long line of examples of the big-government liberal philosophy: government, not individuals, knows what's best for America. Government ought to tell us how to spend our money, government ought to intervene in the free market, government ought to tell us what health care plan we must purchase. Individuals like you and me are too naive, too stupid, too unenlightened to make choices about the way we wish to live and how we wish spend our hard-earned money, so a bunch of bureaucrats need to do it for us.
Welcome to the era of the nanny state.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
A Follow-Up to the Harry Reid Post
My post early this morning entitled "Harry Reid (Racist, Nev.)" deserves a follow-up.
I want to make it clear, if it wasn't already, that my label for Reid was written tongue-in-cheek as a way of pointing out the double standard that the Democrats continue to perpetuate when it comes to race.
Anyone who knows me or has read some of my writing about race issues knows that I absolutely detest the way the term "racist" has been devalued by years of irresponsible overuse. Whenever a Republican utters a phrase that has any sort of racial interpretation or overtones, there is no shortage of people on the Left, in the media and government, who engage in the usual kneejerk reaction of branding the utterer a racist or a bigot. It's a ridiculous tactic, and I've continuously denounced the practice whenever I see it.
My point is that, were Reid a Republican (or, as I wrote in the post earlier, Biden, when he made similar remarks), the uproar on the Left among the Sharptons, the Maureen Dowds, and yes, quite likely, the President of the United States, would have been deafening. Instead, all is quiet, as blacks in Congress (Eleanor Holmes Norton), in the White House, and the media have either ignored the story or accepted Reid's apology with no questions asked and no genuine condemnations to speak of. This is bizarre, given the indignation and outrage that these same folks showed when Trent Lott, a Republican, made a controversial remark and apologized later.
The Democratic party and its supporters on the Left have made a living off of divisive identity politics that emphasize skin color and class differences for decades. They are the ones who are hampering meaningful progress in the arena of race relations.
Harry Reid is a moron. He's made that clear time and again. He's pathetic, he's a train wreck, and he's going to lose more than the Majority Leader position in November- he's going to lose his seat altogether. He said something stupid that he shouldn't have said- or, more precisely, he used a word he shouldn't have. Surely a political figure like Reid ought to know that "Negro" is no longer a socially acceptable term for a black person. Ultimately, though, Reid's remarks, however impolitic, aren't all that awful. They aren't even necessarily incorrect. They're just dumb.
Harry Reid isn't a racist, a fact that lefties are quick to point out now that one of their own has blundered. But if Harry had an "R" next to his name rather than a "D", these same folks would be in hysterics, batting about the "racist" term with reckless abandon. And that, my friends, is the real shame.
I want to make it clear, if it wasn't already, that my label for Reid was written tongue-in-cheek as a way of pointing out the double standard that the Democrats continue to perpetuate when it comes to race.
Anyone who knows me or has read some of my writing about race issues knows that I absolutely detest the way the term "racist" has been devalued by years of irresponsible overuse. Whenever a Republican utters a phrase that has any sort of racial interpretation or overtones, there is no shortage of people on the Left, in the media and government, who engage in the usual kneejerk reaction of branding the utterer a racist or a bigot. It's a ridiculous tactic, and I've continuously denounced the practice whenever I see it.
My point is that, were Reid a Republican (or, as I wrote in the post earlier, Biden, when he made similar remarks), the uproar on the Left among the Sharptons, the Maureen Dowds, and yes, quite likely, the President of the United States, would have been deafening. Instead, all is quiet, as blacks in Congress (Eleanor Holmes Norton), in the White House, and the media have either ignored the story or accepted Reid's apology with no questions asked and no genuine condemnations to speak of. This is bizarre, given the indignation and outrage that these same folks showed when Trent Lott, a Republican, made a controversial remark and apologized later.
The Democratic party and its supporters on the Left have made a living off of divisive identity politics that emphasize skin color and class differences for decades. They are the ones who are hampering meaningful progress in the arena of race relations.
Harry Reid is a moron. He's made that clear time and again. He's pathetic, he's a train wreck, and he's going to lose more than the Majority Leader position in November- he's going to lose his seat altogether. He said something stupid that he shouldn't have said- or, more precisely, he used a word he shouldn't have. Surely a political figure like Reid ought to know that "Negro" is no longer a socially acceptable term for a black person. Ultimately, though, Reid's remarks, however impolitic, aren't all that awful. They aren't even necessarily incorrect. They're just dumb.
Harry Reid isn't a racist, a fact that lefties are quick to point out now that one of their own has blundered. But if Harry had an "R" next to his name rather than a "D", these same folks would be in hysterics, batting about the "racist" term with reckless abandon. And that, my friends, is the real shame.
Harry Reid (Racist, Nev.)
But of course, that headline isn't true...because everyone knows a Democrat can't be a racist.
It was revealed yesterday that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Harry Reid provided this assessment of then-candidate Barack Obama: Obama was electable/a desirable candidate since he was "light-skinned" and had no "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Wow. First off, the quote is just another example of what a buffoon the Senate Majority Leader is.
But there's a bigger point here. Immediately after these comments surfaced yesterday, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and some other Democrat apologists stated their unwavering support for Reid and accepted his apology.
It's a double standard, plain and simple. All one has to do is look back to 2002, when Republican Senator Trent Lott made a boneheaded comment about how it's a shame that Strom Thurmond, a segregationist back in the day, didn't win the presidency when he ran. Barack Obama joined folks like Sharpton in calling for and ultimately forcing Lott's removal from his Senate leadership post. So where's the outrage from the same folks over Reid's remarks?
There's only one explanation. There is a big, fat, ugly double standard here. When a Republican makes any sort of statement that can be taken out of context or manipulated into seeming even a little racially insensitive, that Republican is a racist. Trent Lott? Racist. Don Imus? Racist. The list goes on. But when a Democrat makes such a comment? Hey, no problem!
Recall that Reid wasn't the only prominent Democrat who made a bizarre racial assessment of candidate Obama during the campaign. Then-candidate Joseph Biden applauded Barack Obama and opined that his success was a result of Obama being a "clean, articulate black man." But of course, bygones are bygones when it comes to Democrats making racial remarks, and now Joey is VP.
After awhile, this gets so tiring...and surely the American people are going to tire of it too. It's Democrats and the Left in general who are constantly obsessed with skin color, not Republicans. When one of their own makes remarks about a "Negro dialect" and a candidate's "light skin," why not call that person out?
Perhaps the most ironic part of all is that this is the same Harry Reid who recently compared Republican opposition to the Senate health care bill to obstructionism over slavery and civil rights. When Reid made this statement, I dedicated a blog post to him, referring to him as Harry Reid (Demagogue, Nev.) and pointing out that, for the record, Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party that ended slavery and pushed for civil rights legislation over the obstructionism of Senate Democrats.
Harry Reid has now earned himself a new label, as the title of this post suggests. Keep up the great work, Harry!
It was revealed yesterday that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Harry Reid provided this assessment of then-candidate Barack Obama: Obama was electable/a desirable candidate since he was "light-skinned" and had no "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Wow. First off, the quote is just another example of what a buffoon the Senate Majority Leader is.
But there's a bigger point here. Immediately after these comments surfaced yesterday, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and some other Democrat apologists stated their unwavering support for Reid and accepted his apology.
It's a double standard, plain and simple. All one has to do is look back to 2002, when Republican Senator Trent Lott made a boneheaded comment about how it's a shame that Strom Thurmond, a segregationist back in the day, didn't win the presidency when he ran. Barack Obama joined folks like Sharpton in calling for and ultimately forcing Lott's removal from his Senate leadership post. So where's the outrage from the same folks over Reid's remarks?
There's only one explanation. There is a big, fat, ugly double standard here. When a Republican makes any sort of statement that can be taken out of context or manipulated into seeming even a little racially insensitive, that Republican is a racist. Trent Lott? Racist. Don Imus? Racist. The list goes on. But when a Democrat makes such a comment? Hey, no problem!
Recall that Reid wasn't the only prominent Democrat who made a bizarre racial assessment of candidate Obama during the campaign. Then-candidate Joseph Biden applauded Barack Obama and opined that his success was a result of Obama being a "clean, articulate black man." But of course, bygones are bygones when it comes to Democrats making racial remarks, and now Joey is VP.
After awhile, this gets so tiring...and surely the American people are going to tire of it too. It's Democrats and the Left in general who are constantly obsessed with skin color, not Republicans. When one of their own makes remarks about a "Negro dialect" and a candidate's "light skin," why not call that person out?
Perhaps the most ironic part of all is that this is the same Harry Reid who recently compared Republican opposition to the Senate health care bill to obstructionism over slavery and civil rights. When Reid made this statement, I dedicated a blog post to him, referring to him as Harry Reid (Demagogue, Nev.) and pointing out that, for the record, Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party that ended slavery and pushed for civil rights legislation over the obstructionism of Senate Democrats.
Harry Reid has now earned himself a new label, as the title of this post suggests. Keep up the great work, Harry!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
To Profile or Not to Profile?
That is the question.
The left and many self-proclaimed "civil libertarians" are predictably riled up about the Obama administration's recent decision to institute a form of profiling in airports. To read a short summary of the new directive, follow this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/obama-administration-orders-new-airline-security-directives.html
Under the new policy, any individual traveling from or through the following nations on their way to the US will be subjected to enhanced screening: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria.
The debate over profiling is one worth having, because there are reasonable people with reasonable positions on both sides. At its core, the debate is about how to balance civil liberties and national security. If one accepts that a) we are fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorists, b) that it's a war worth fighting, and c) that it's a war that must be won, since nothing short of the security of our allies and our own citizens is at stake, then it becomes necessary to accept some level of infringement on our individual liberties in the name of keeping the homeland and our fellow Americans safe.
It's a balancing act. In this case, the price we pay in terms of liberty is a little extra attention/screening for individuals who hail from or have recently spent time in certain nations that we deem to be more likely to produce a Muslim extremist hell-bent on slaughtering Americans. The benefit we (hope to) receive is saving innocent American lives.
Obviously, it would make more sense to profile based on religion rather than nationality, since we're at war with radicalized Islamic terrorists, not Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This is, of course, a fact that the Obama administration either a) can't bring itself to admit out of a sort of willful blindness, because they don't have the stomach/don't want to face the harsh realities of war or b) motivated by political correctness concerns, chooses not to admit for fear of offending the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful people.
The first theory is the one that Dick Cheney espoused recently. Decisions like the one made by Attorney General Eric Holder, with President Obama's blessing, to ship terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the Big Apple for a criminal trial in a civilian court certainly lends credence to this view of the Obama administration. So too does the administration's insistence on dropping the whole "War on Terror" nomenclature, in favor of labeling acts of terror "man-caused disasters" (as Secretary Napolitano has been known to do) and referring to military actions abroad as "overseas contingency operations."
On the whole, I think Cheney's point about the administration's willful blindness is on target, insofar as it accurately describes the shift away from fighting these barbarians on a war footing. Instead, the administration has elected to treat the terrorists (sorry, "alleged suspects") as ordinary criminals who must be Mirandized and allowed to lawyer up before we can ask them whether they have important information that might allow us to hunt down their leaders and mentors in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc...and potentially save American lives.
But the willful blindness argument only gets you so far. After all, the Obama administration DID just agree to begin a system of profiling in airports, which is a pretty serious step (and one that the supposedly uber-hawkish, Constitution-shredding Bush/Cheney crowd did not take). But as I've pointed out, Obama's profiling strategy singles out people by nationality and/or where they've been living/visiting.
I think, and I'm of course guessing here, that there are two reasons for this approach. The first is that it's simply easier to profile this way rather than asking people (and verifying) what religion they practice. The second reason is that a formal policy of profiling Muslims may alienate the silent majority of peaceful Muslims who reject the hate-mongering and senseless violence of the jihadists. And to win this war, we will ultimately need this moderate Muslim majority to rise up and join us in beating back the forces of radical Islamism.
These concerns have merit, especially the second one. I don't know what the answer is. Profiling by nation is a start. Those who object to this new policy would do well to remember this simple fact: the 14 countries on the list, by taking appropriate actions to root out terrorism within their borders, control their own destiny. We are funneling millions upon millions of dollars in aid to some of these countries in order to help them beat back the forces of extremism. If they get serious about defeating Al Qaeda, perhaps we'll "reward" them by removing them from the list.
But ultimately, for profiling to be a useful tool in our national security arsenal, we're probably going to have to subject Muslims to extra scrutiny. This isn't bigoted or racist. It's a commonsense policy based on facts. We're at war with an enemy whose propensity for wanton violence knows no bounds. They are not Orthodox Jews or devout Christians. They are extremists who claim (falsely) to be adhering to the dictates of the Koran and the Islamic faith.
The left and many self-proclaimed "civil libertarians" are predictably riled up about the Obama administration's recent decision to institute a form of profiling in airports. To read a short summary of the new directive, follow this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/obama-administration-orders-new-airline-security-directives.html
Under the new policy, any individual traveling from or through the following nations on their way to the US will be subjected to enhanced screening: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria.
The debate over profiling is one worth having, because there are reasonable people with reasonable positions on both sides. At its core, the debate is about how to balance civil liberties and national security. If one accepts that a) we are fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorists, b) that it's a war worth fighting, and c) that it's a war that must be won, since nothing short of the security of our allies and our own citizens is at stake, then it becomes necessary to accept some level of infringement on our individual liberties in the name of keeping the homeland and our fellow Americans safe.
It's a balancing act. In this case, the price we pay in terms of liberty is a little extra attention/screening for individuals who hail from or have recently spent time in certain nations that we deem to be more likely to produce a Muslim extremist hell-bent on slaughtering Americans. The benefit we (hope to) receive is saving innocent American lives.
Obviously, it would make more sense to profile based on religion rather than nationality, since we're at war with radicalized Islamic terrorists, not Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This is, of course, a fact that the Obama administration either a) can't bring itself to admit out of a sort of willful blindness, because they don't have the stomach/don't want to face the harsh realities of war or b) motivated by political correctness concerns, chooses not to admit for fear of offending the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful people.
The first theory is the one that Dick Cheney espoused recently. Decisions like the one made by Attorney General Eric Holder, with President Obama's blessing, to ship terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the Big Apple for a criminal trial in a civilian court certainly lends credence to this view of the Obama administration. So too does the administration's insistence on dropping the whole "War on Terror" nomenclature, in favor of labeling acts of terror "man-caused disasters" (as Secretary Napolitano has been known to do) and referring to military actions abroad as "overseas contingency operations."
On the whole, I think Cheney's point about the administration's willful blindness is on target, insofar as it accurately describes the shift away from fighting these barbarians on a war footing. Instead, the administration has elected to treat the terrorists (sorry, "alleged suspects") as ordinary criminals who must be Mirandized and allowed to lawyer up before we can ask them whether they have important information that might allow us to hunt down their leaders and mentors in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc...and potentially save American lives.
But the willful blindness argument only gets you so far. After all, the Obama administration DID just agree to begin a system of profiling in airports, which is a pretty serious step (and one that the supposedly uber-hawkish, Constitution-shredding Bush/Cheney crowd did not take). But as I've pointed out, Obama's profiling strategy singles out people by nationality and/or where they've been living/visiting.
I think, and I'm of course guessing here, that there are two reasons for this approach. The first is that it's simply easier to profile this way rather than asking people (and verifying) what religion they practice. The second reason is that a formal policy of profiling Muslims may alienate the silent majority of peaceful Muslims who reject the hate-mongering and senseless violence of the jihadists. And to win this war, we will ultimately need this moderate Muslim majority to rise up and join us in beating back the forces of radical Islamism.
These concerns have merit, especially the second one. I don't know what the answer is. Profiling by nation is a start. Those who object to this new policy would do well to remember this simple fact: the 14 countries on the list, by taking appropriate actions to root out terrorism within their borders, control their own destiny. We are funneling millions upon millions of dollars in aid to some of these countries in order to help them beat back the forces of extremism. If they get serious about defeating Al Qaeda, perhaps we'll "reward" them by removing them from the list.
But ultimately, for profiling to be a useful tool in our national security arsenal, we're probably going to have to subject Muslims to extra scrutiny. This isn't bigoted or racist. It's a commonsense policy based on facts. We're at war with an enemy whose propensity for wanton violence knows no bounds. They are not Orthodox Jews or devout Christians. They are extremists who claim (falsely) to be adhering to the dictates of the Koran and the Islamic faith.
Trouble...Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Trouble...
Worry...worry, worry, worry, worry, worry.
You know that catchy song on that Travelers' commercial with the dog? I imagine that'll be the Democratic Party's anthem in 2010. Here's the trifecta of troublesome, worrisome news for the party of the donkey:
1. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota announced yesterday that he's quitting. Dorgan was shown trailing a potential Republican candidate by over 20 (!) points, no doubt primarily a result of his support for the Senate health care bill.
2. Senator Chris Dodd, from my home state of Connecticut, followed up Dorgan's announcement with one of his own. This was especially exciting news for me, since I've been vocally anti-Dodd for years. The man is a crook, a corrupt Washington insider who exists only to serve his own interests- for instance, by taking sweetheart mortgage deals from a fellow crook. He was truly a disgrace to his state, his constituents, and his country. While Dodd's decision to quit likely turns a Republican pick-up into a Democratic victory, it's just so satisfying to watch this scumbag quit. Time to change my bumper sticker from "Dump Dodd" to "Dumped Dodd."
3. Republican Scott Brown, a Massachusetts state senator, trails Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by just 9 (!!) points in the Massachusetts Senate special election for Ted Kennedy's vacant seat. It's absolutely amazing that a Republican could be within single digits in the bluest state in the union just ONE YEAR after the election of the great HopeAndChanger himself. Coakley's shrinking lead is a testament to just how out of touch the Democratic party has become with most Americans...and more narrowly, it shows how toxic the Democratic health reform proposal is. Even if Coakley ekes out a victory, you can bet moderates/centrist Dems like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and the Blue Dogs in the House will feel their feet get even colder when it comes to cap and trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, card check, etc.
You know that catchy song on that Travelers' commercial with the dog? I imagine that'll be the Democratic Party's anthem in 2010. Here's the trifecta of troublesome, worrisome news for the party of the donkey:
1. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota announced yesterday that he's quitting. Dorgan was shown trailing a potential Republican candidate by over 20 (!) points, no doubt primarily a result of his support for the Senate health care bill.
2. Senator Chris Dodd, from my home state of Connecticut, followed up Dorgan's announcement with one of his own. This was especially exciting news for me, since I've been vocally anti-Dodd for years. The man is a crook, a corrupt Washington insider who exists only to serve his own interests- for instance, by taking sweetheart mortgage deals from a fellow crook. He was truly a disgrace to his state, his constituents, and his country. While Dodd's decision to quit likely turns a Republican pick-up into a Democratic victory, it's just so satisfying to watch this scumbag quit. Time to change my bumper sticker from "Dump Dodd" to "Dumped Dodd."
3. Republican Scott Brown, a Massachusetts state senator, trails Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by just 9 (!!) points in the Massachusetts Senate special election for Ted Kennedy's vacant seat. It's absolutely amazing that a Republican could be within single digits in the bluest state in the union just ONE YEAR after the election of the great HopeAndChanger himself. Coakley's shrinking lead is a testament to just how out of touch the Democratic party has become with most Americans...and more narrowly, it shows how toxic the Democratic health reform proposal is. Even if Coakley ekes out a victory, you can bet moderates/centrist Dems like Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and the Blue Dogs in the House will feel their feet get even colder when it comes to cap and trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, card check, etc.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Happy New Decade...Now Time For Some Difficult Decisions
Wow- I haven't blogged on here in a week...and now we've begun a new decade.
With the Teens underway, the consensus among Americans about the decade we've left behind is something along the lines of good riddance. A disputed presidential election, an act of war on American soil that left 3,000 civilians dead, two costly and lengthy wars abroad, and a financial collapse were just some of the decade's lowlights.
Many of the reflections on the 00's that I've read over the past week looked backward and lamented the trying times that our nation experienced. While it's certainly true that the double zeroes were a challenging decade for the USA, we ought to keep things in perspective. In the 20th century, America became a world power and, by the century's end, the world's only superpower. But along the way, it was rarely smooth sailing for the red, white, and blue. The US fought in a world war in the 1910's, experienced an economic collapse of historic proportions in the 1930's, played a pivotal role in beating back the forces of fascism in the 1940's, fought an unpopular war in the 1960's and 1970's that threatened to tear the nation apart at home, and stared down Soviet Communism during a long, successful battle that required a mixture of military might, diplomatic skill, economic power, and ideological superiority.
Anyone with a grasp of American history can see that while the 00's were by no means a joy ride, they also shouldn't be viewed as the decade from hell that some commentators are making them out to be. Leave my 20th century examples behind for a second and consider that during the 1860's, as a mind-numbingly bloody civil war raged between North and South, it was unclear that there would even BE a United States of America once the conflict ended.
As we move into the 10's, it's far more important and productive for us to look into the future rather than bemoan the past. The fact of the matter is that the time has come for us to make some difficult decisions about the future of America, the role it will play on the world stage, and the size and scope of its government. In short, American citizens will have to choose what sort of country we will become. That is a frightening prospect. But it's also exhilarating.
So why will this decade require that we make difficult decisions about fundamental principles? Simple. The path we've embarked on is not only fiscally irresponsible, it's utterly unsustainable. The size of the federal government, the current spending levels, the deficit and the national debt, the impending insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the health reform legislation offered by the Democrats...all of this will force us to choose, once and for all, between spending cuts and raising taxes.
For far too many years now, our politicians have repeatedly refused to make these politically unpalatable but necessary decisions. Liberals hide behind their "tax the rich" mantra, despite the fact that the wealthy already pay a substantial amount in taxes...and despite the fact that raising taxes on the top 1 percent or 3 percent or 5 percent simply won't be enough to finance their extravagant agenda anyway, unless they plan to tax the top earners at something like 70%, which would sap the free market of its dynamism and stifle economic growth even further. If liberals want to keep growing government, they'll need to have the political guts to raise ALL of our taxes. No more talk about "tax cuts for 95% of Americans." Let liberal Democrats stand up and say, we expect all Americans to shoulder an increased tax burden so that government can do more. If they win that argument on the merits, then it'll be clear that Americans wish to go the way of the European welfare state.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are willing to talk about cutting spending, but it was abundantly clear that they were unwilling to actually do it during the Bush years. Congress is addicted to pork, and when it comes to reckless spending, Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats. Just as raising taxes across the board is political poison, so too is paring back entitlement programs. Let conservative Republicans campaign on cutting spending and meaningfully reducing the size and scope of government. They'll have to make it clear to the populace that this will be a hard transition for some, involving some dislocation and short-term adversity. But if they win the argument for smaller government on the merits, then it will be obvious that the American people favor a return to the sort of limited government envisioned by the Framers and therefore reject the continued march toward a nanny state.
If this battle over fundamental principles doesn't happen voluntarily, it will happen by necessity. The enormity of our national debt, which continues to grow, threatens American sovereignty and our status as the world's foremost superpower. Let's hope the 2010's are the decade in which politicians from both parties join hands and make a stand. They don't have to agree; in fact, they can't. For the good of America, they NEED to fundamentally disagree this time, and Americans need to make a choice. Alexis de Tocqueville famously distinguished between great parties, which fight over fundamental, first principles, and small parties, which scuffle over less lofty issues and patronage. The United States of America has experienced both in its history- for great parties, think Civil War era; for small parties, think the 1990s (just to give one example of each...there are others.) This decade may be one of great parties...and that might be just what we need.
With the Teens underway, the consensus among Americans about the decade we've left behind is something along the lines of good riddance. A disputed presidential election, an act of war on American soil that left 3,000 civilians dead, two costly and lengthy wars abroad, and a financial collapse were just some of the decade's lowlights.
Many of the reflections on the 00's that I've read over the past week looked backward and lamented the trying times that our nation experienced. While it's certainly true that the double zeroes were a challenging decade for the USA, we ought to keep things in perspective. In the 20th century, America became a world power and, by the century's end, the world's only superpower. But along the way, it was rarely smooth sailing for the red, white, and blue. The US fought in a world war in the 1910's, experienced an economic collapse of historic proportions in the 1930's, played a pivotal role in beating back the forces of fascism in the 1940's, fought an unpopular war in the 1960's and 1970's that threatened to tear the nation apart at home, and stared down Soviet Communism during a long, successful battle that required a mixture of military might, diplomatic skill, economic power, and ideological superiority.
Anyone with a grasp of American history can see that while the 00's were by no means a joy ride, they also shouldn't be viewed as the decade from hell that some commentators are making them out to be. Leave my 20th century examples behind for a second and consider that during the 1860's, as a mind-numbingly bloody civil war raged between North and South, it was unclear that there would even BE a United States of America once the conflict ended.
As we move into the 10's, it's far more important and productive for us to look into the future rather than bemoan the past. The fact of the matter is that the time has come for us to make some difficult decisions about the future of America, the role it will play on the world stage, and the size and scope of its government. In short, American citizens will have to choose what sort of country we will become. That is a frightening prospect. But it's also exhilarating.
So why will this decade require that we make difficult decisions about fundamental principles? Simple. The path we've embarked on is not only fiscally irresponsible, it's utterly unsustainable. The size of the federal government, the current spending levels, the deficit and the national debt, the impending insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the health reform legislation offered by the Democrats...all of this will force us to choose, once and for all, between spending cuts and raising taxes.
For far too many years now, our politicians have repeatedly refused to make these politically unpalatable but necessary decisions. Liberals hide behind their "tax the rich" mantra, despite the fact that the wealthy already pay a substantial amount in taxes...and despite the fact that raising taxes on the top 1 percent or 3 percent or 5 percent simply won't be enough to finance their extravagant agenda anyway, unless they plan to tax the top earners at something like 70%, which would sap the free market of its dynamism and stifle economic growth even further. If liberals want to keep growing government, they'll need to have the political guts to raise ALL of our taxes. No more talk about "tax cuts for 95% of Americans." Let liberal Democrats stand up and say, we expect all Americans to shoulder an increased tax burden so that government can do more. If they win that argument on the merits, then it'll be clear that Americans wish to go the way of the European welfare state.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are willing to talk about cutting spending, but it was abundantly clear that they were unwilling to actually do it during the Bush years. Congress is addicted to pork, and when it comes to reckless spending, Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats. Just as raising taxes across the board is political poison, so too is paring back entitlement programs. Let conservative Republicans campaign on cutting spending and meaningfully reducing the size and scope of government. They'll have to make it clear to the populace that this will be a hard transition for some, involving some dislocation and short-term adversity. But if they win the argument for smaller government on the merits, then it will be obvious that the American people favor a return to the sort of limited government envisioned by the Framers and therefore reject the continued march toward a nanny state.
If this battle over fundamental principles doesn't happen voluntarily, it will happen by necessity. The enormity of our national debt, which continues to grow, threatens American sovereignty and our status as the world's foremost superpower. Let's hope the 2010's are the decade in which politicians from both parties join hands and make a stand. They don't have to agree; in fact, they can't. For the good of America, they NEED to fundamentally disagree this time, and Americans need to make a choice. Alexis de Tocqueville famously distinguished between great parties, which fight over fundamental, first principles, and small parties, which scuffle over less lofty issues and patronage. The United States of America has experienced both in its history- for great parties, think Civil War era; for small parties, think the 1990s (just to give one example of each...there are others.) This decade may be one of great parties...and that might be just what we need.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
