"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology."


Monday, May 30, 2005

France Rejects E.U. Charter

By popular referendum the people of France strongly rejected the European Union constitution yesterday and thus pushed the dream of a European superstate into a dangerously precarious predicament. Though leaders within the E.U. are claiming that the charter’s defeat does not spell it’s end, it cannot become effective unless every member nation ratifies it, making a scenario where it does become effective nearly impossible to envision at this point. The French opposition to the charter can be encapsulated into three major reasons, with two of the reasons serving as a microcosm for opposition to the charter throughout the whole of Europe.

First of all, many French citizens voted the way they did as a means of punishing French President Chirac and his government, which is very unpopular at the moment. As is always the case, culpability for the stagnant economy (growth is low and unemployment is at 10 percent) and immigration concerns are being pinned on those in power, and the overwhelming vote against the charter is viewed by many analysts as a repudiation of the Chirac government. As a result, President Chirac is expected to announce a sizeable shakeup within the government tomorrow night, which is likely to include the resignation of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. It is widely rumored that his replacement will be one of President Chirac’s major political rivals, whose elevation could further diminish Chirac’s chances of another reelection in ‘07 should he decide to seek it. To be fair however, most believe the defeat of the charter, in which Chirac expended a considerable amount of political capital on behalf of, destroyed any chance he had of successfully seeking another term as French president anyway.

Secondly, the charter’s defeat in France not only represents a repudiation of President Chirac and his government, but of the free market economy, i.e. capitalism, that the E.U. would in many ways bring about. Exit polls indicate that a large segment of those who voted believed that the constitution was "too market oriented", and didn’t contain enough protections for citizens. This is rather humorous, for the French are disenchanted with their stagnant economy and high unemployment, yet they reject the vehicle that could open up their economy and help put an end to the stifling socialist system that has put them exactly where they are today.

Finally, the charter was rejected because there is a widespread fear within France and much of Europe that by signing up for the E.U they will surrendering their nation’s sovereignty. As George Will explained in his editorial of May the 29th, the charter dictates that member states may "exercise their competence" only where the E.U. either fails to or decides not to exercise it’s. Furthermore, the E.U. would get jurisdiction over all matters ranging from defense to agriculture. I would be resentful of this as well, for as Mr. Will explains, "sovereignty is a predicate of self-government", and by accepting the European Union constitution every member state would be surrendering at least some, probably most of, their right of self-government and determination. Because of this, France and Europe are well within their right to reject the charter.

UPDATE (11:08 6/1/05): The Dutch rejected the E.U. constitution today in an even greater margin than their French counterparts did. It is now an undeniable certainty that the charter in it's current form is dead, and there are going to have to be some major modifications made for it to ever gain ratification.

Memorial Day



For All Who Cherish Freedom, The Fallen Will Not Be Forgotten.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

The Senate Compromise And It's '08 Ramifications

Much of the chatter and analysis over the recent deal in the Senate hasn't regarded it's ramifications on either the Senate itself or the federal judiciary, but rather the deal's political effects on the '08 presidential race. Conventional opinion has been that the deal has hurt the prospects of Arizona Sen. John McCain and Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist, while it has helped those of Virginia Sen. George Allen. As the punditry has it, Sen. McCain's leadership in brokering this deal has only added to his negative, maverick perception within the party, while Sen. Frist's inability to keep the troops in line has reflected poorly on his leadership skills. In Sen. Allen's case, the prevailing opinion is that his steadfast support of giving nominees an up or down vote and his conservative principles throughout the whole debate will help endear him to the party's conservative base three and a half years from now.

For the record I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom, though I do believe that the negative effects this compromise will have on the presidential aspirations of Sen. McCain and Sen. Frist have been a bit exaggerated. In my view it's a long shot that anyone of these senators will receive the nomination, if for nothing else than the fact that they are senators, who, with the exception of two cases in American history, don't get elected president. I do think Sen. Allen might have a shot, mainly due to his conservative record and sunny personality and demeanor, which has been compared to Ronald Reagan once or twice. However, though I wouldn't write off anyone of these guys, I believe both Sen. McCain and Sen. Frist face an especially long road in getting to the White House.

Let me first begin with Sen. McCain. Though many believe that his role in the whole ordeal will severely hamper his efforts to win over conservatives in the primaries, I have believed from the start that his chances of winning the nomination are slim, regardless of his recent efforts. Sen. McCain has never been all that popular with the base, and trying to reverse the maverick perception that he earned during the 2000 primaries was always going to be tough. Sen. McCain's best hope come Iowa and New Hampshire will be that the party will look at him as the strongest candidate to go against Sen. Clinton in the general election, and then base their votes on that. I wouldn't discount this possibility either, for the Republican rank and file's strong distaste for Sen. Clinton could easily motivate them to take that kind of strategic voting approach(Peter Brown outlines the GOP's history of it).

In regards to Sen. Frist, I have never thought that he stood much of a chance in the primary race either, though for different reasons. His credentials as majority leader have been rather unimpressive, and though he is a thoughtful, intelligent man his personality is by no means commanding and he may lack the capacity to inspire and excite his base. His adherence to conservative causes has been admirable, but I can easily see him getting lost in the fold in what looks to be, at least initially, a crowded Republican field.

No, come '08 I believe that the party will nominate a governor, for governors make the best presidential candidates, with three of our four most recent presidents having served in that role. Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee are just a few of the Republican governors that have been mentioned, and in the time between now and the '08 primary race I'm sure I'll have more than a thing or two to say about each. Regardless of who the party chooses as it's nominee however, I am sure he (or she) will be an excellent candidate and will make a great president.

UPDATE ( 10:22 A.M. 5/28/05): Rasmussen Reports has some very interesting numbers on public reaction to the filibuster compromise.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Compromise Reached

A group of fourteen moderate senators from both parties reached agreement this evening on a compromise that will prevent the need for the "nuclear" option to be voted on in the Senate. The deal promises that all the participating members of the negotiating group will vote for cloture on the three most controversial of the filibustered judges (Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown), with no such pledge for two others (William Myers and Henry Saad). The compromise also contains a pledge that the Republicans will not pursue the "nuclear" option in the 109th congress while the Democrats pledge not to filibuster judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances". In essence both parties hold on to their major weapon with the Democrats still reserving the right to filibuster and Republicans still reserving the right to pursue the "nuclear" option in the future, just not in this congress.

While this compromise does allow for up or down votes on three of the president's most prominent judicial nominations, I'm afraid it is nothing but a short term stop-gap. I and my fellow Republicans have been stressing all along that every nominee deserves an up or down vote, and this agreement fails to insure that. Furthermore, Democrats still reserve the right to filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances", which leaves us right back where we started, for the Democrats have slandered every single one of these nominees as right-wing extremists far outside the mainstream of American public opinion. If they showed no hesitancy in labeling these nominees as extremists they certainly won't think twice about labeling any future nominee with the same view points as extremist as well, especially when the president sends a constitutionalist Supreme Court nominee to the Senate.

If there's an upside to this deal it is that Democrats will look increasingly duplicitous once they do come back and filibuster a future nominee. The minute they do so Republicans can immediately counter by asking them that if the current nominee is an extremist than why did they bargain and allow those other three nominees to receive up or down votes, nominees that they also labeled as extremists? Pointing this out will immediately destroy the facade of conscientious objection that the Democrats have been trying to sell to the American public. However calling the Democrats bluff in this matter is small compensation, and it is dwarfed by the fact that this deal will allow the Democrats to once again filibuster under the guise of conscientious objection.

Simply put, this deal essentially accomplishes nothing. Democrats can once again revert back to their tired obstructionist ways under the cover of "extraordinary circumstances", an excuse and a practice that this agreement now legitimizes. It will not be long, probably just as soon as a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court, before Democratic filibusters once again plague the Senate and America's judicial system, and Senate Republicans will be forced to once again seek a means to insure that each judicial nominee receives an up or down vote.

UPDATE (3:16 P.M. 5/24/05): The Senate voted 81-18 today to invoke cloture on the Priscilla Owen nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. What's striking about this vote is that so many Democrats who refused to invoke cloture on her yesterday on the grounds that she was an extremist turned around and did so today.

UPDATE (2:55 P.M. 5/25/05): The Senate confirmed Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today 55-43. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only two Democrats to vote for the nomination while Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was the only Republican to vote no. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska voted "present" .

Sunday, May 22, 2005

The India Card

One of the shrewdest and most calculating diplomatic acts by an American president was Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972. Having spent decades in complete isolation from the rest of the world, President Nixon's visit to the People's Republic was a stunning act to all within the United States and throughout the world. As a product of Henry Kissinger's infamous "realpolitik", the president's trip was designed to not only strengthen his political standing at home (1972 was an election year), but to use China as leverage against the Soviet Union. Nixon was playing "The China Card", as it has been famously dubbed, using warmer relations with the Chinese to foster suspicion within the Soviet Union over a possible alliance between the U.S. and China and subsequently force the Soviets into arms reduction negotiations with Washington. It worked.

The Bush Administration is now borrowing a page out of this diplomatic playbook, instead employing the India card against China. Though it has received no press attention, the president and Secretary Rice are quietly trying to lay the groundwork for an Indian-American relationship that would foster India's elevation as a world power. The reason for this is simple, an Indian world power aligned with the U.S. would prove to be a strong check on Chinese influence in Asia and the world. China is growing at a troubling rate, and their hostility towards Taiwan and democracy in general automatically makes Chinese hegemony in the region an unwelcome development for American interests. Currently it is in neither China's nor America's interests to confront each other. This could easily change down the road.

The only nation in the region with the size and capability of matching China is India, which means a powerful and democratic India is in America's best interests. An American-Indian super alliance would go a long ways in deterring the Chinese from moving on Taiwan and other countries, and it would insure that there is a military alliance capable of defeating the Chinese should they act belligerently.

For an administration that is criticized for being unilateral and reckless in foreign policy, this is an astute attempt at fostering a long-term relationship that will reap lasting benefits for America's geopolitical interests in the 21st Century.

Hat Tip: Power Line

Saturday, May 21, 2005

We The People....Disapprove

According to a recently released WSJ/NBC poll a huge majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the 109th congress. Only 33% of the electorate approves of the job congress is doing, which is the lowest such level since 1994 and is six points lower than last month and eight points lower than it was in January. On the face of it this looks like bad news for the Republican majority, however both parties are in bad shape and neither one seems to be in any position to move on the other. While the Republicans are in many ways failing, the Democrats are doing an even worse job.

But first let me address the Republicans, who in the '04 elections expanded their majorities in both houses and seemed poised to enact the agenda that they and the president had campaigned on. To this date however they really haven't delivered, with the only real accomplishments being the tort reform and bankruptcy bills. Instead of boldly seeking to reform American institutions to meet the needs and challenges of the 21st century, Republicans have sat on their hands and have been afraid to do anything that might jeopardize their majority. Their timid attempts to convince the public to get behind Social Security reform is the greatest example of this.

Furthermore, the judicial stalemate that has been looming over the Senate for months now has not been resolved. Sen. Frist and the GOP leadership should have done this months ago, and I am simply tired of hearing about it and want congress to deal with more important issues such as Social Security and the tax code. Whatever Sen. Frist and the Senate leadership decide to do at this point, and it is abundantly clear that the "nuclear" option is where they plan on going, they need to do it now so the Senate can turn it's focus from the procedural junk it has been preoccupied with so far and back to the people's business where it belongs.

The fact that Republicans even have to bring about a vote on the "nuclear" option in the first place brings us to the Democrats' problems, who are currently in no position to take advantage of the Republicans' vulnerabilities. Instead of providing Americans with their own agenda and vision, the Democrats have offered nothing but antagonistic obstructionism to the president and the Republican agenda, as well as the indefensible filibustering of judges who deserve an up or down vote. We've heard a lot of criticism and opposition on their part, what we haven't heard is what they would do instead. Republicans were able to take over congress in '94 because they had an agenda and a direction that Republican candidates all over the country subscribed to. If the Democrats are going to achieve a similar takeover in '06 they are going to have to do the exact same thing. Simply trying to block anything and everything and demonizing Tom Delay will not cut it, and I believe it's going to take new leadership within the party to realize this.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

The Insanity Continues

The Senate once again proved it's inability to control spending today when they passed the highway bill by an 89-11 margin. The bill's total price tag is $295 billion, $11 billion more than the White House said they will approve. Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R-Al), submitted an amendment that would bring the bill back under budget, however only sixteen Republicans had the sense enough to vote for it. If upheld by the conference committee, the bill will go to the president, who will hopefully make good on his threat to veto any bill that exceeds it's budget.

This fiscal insanity in the Senate is really getting frustrating, for it is just another incident in what is developing into a troubling pattern from the Republican lead Senate. At a time of war and deficits, and when many of America's permanent programs need to be reformed for the twenty-first century, it is irresponsible for the Senate to continue to break the budget. While America's roads certainly need more funding and improvement, the government has to prioritize how it allocates it's limited funds. The boys in Washington have to come to grips with the fact that there is only so much money that is available to spend, and we can't spend more than is allotted no matter how much it might seem justified.

Furthermore, while this bill certainly reflects poorly on the majority of Republicans in the Senate who voted for it, it is also a condemnation of Senate Democrats. We hear a lot from them about how Republicans and the president spend too much and are the culprits for the current deficit, yet when actual cuts are proposed the Democrats stand tooth and nail against them. Not one single Democrat voted in favor of the Session's amendment that would bring this bill back in budget, and they also voted against the '06 budget that had other spending reductions. When it comes to fiscal responsibility, the Democrats' actions and their rhetoric simply don't match.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

A Salute To Our Finest

Unfortunately I haven't had much of a chance to do any blogging or check up on the comments in the last couple of days but I would like to take this chance to join with those in Washington D.C. today and salute those officers who have given their lives in the line of duty in the last year and beyond. I and the entire nation thank you for your sacrifice and will never forget the bravery and courage you displayed in serving your country.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Book Review: The Case For Democracy

As a former Soviet dissident and former member of the Israeli cabinet Natan Sharansky brings to the table a perspective that allows him to authoritatively comment on the never ending clash between free and fear societies that few others can. The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom To Overcome Tyranny & Terror is a provocative appeal to the free world to take up the fight for freedom throughout the world and to aid the millions who thirst for freedom in their own lands. In the book he covers three main points:

  • The compositions and differences between free societies and fear societies,
  • the importance of moral clarity in today's world,
  • and why the only way to achieve peace is to spread democracy.

He doesn't simply make these points through abstract theoretical arguments however, but through drawing upon his own experiences as a Soviet dissenter and Israeli Cabinet member. By drawing upon his experiences in the Soviet Union, he provides a first hand account of what life was really like within that country, and revealed how easily the free world can be duped into believing that the situation within a fear society isn't as bad as it really is. Furthermore, he invokes the policies of former American political leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Scoop Jackson to illustrate how the free world can further the cause of human rights by making diplomatic and economic support of fear societies conditional on democratic reforms within that country. By using the metaphor of the soldier having to keep his gun raised at all times he also emphasizes how the free world must insure that it never props up the arms of a dictatorship.

He applies this to the Middle East peace process as well. As he makes abundantly clear, peace with the Palestinians hasn't been achieved because Israel and the world have tried to accomplish peace by increasing the power of Yasser Arafat. During his time in the cabinet Sharansky was really the only one who argued that the only way the Palestinians and Israelis could live in peace was if Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's tyranny was removed and a free society and subsequently a democratically elected government took it's place.

As Mr. Sharansky put it, democratically elected leaders are dependent on the people they govern, and thus they must work to improve those peoples' lives to remain in power. In contrast, dictators must create foreign enemies to stay in power, justifying and deflecting attention away from their own oppression. All the attempts at peace with the Palestinians never worked because Arafat had to scapegoat Israel for all the Palestinians' problems, which incubated a culture of death and hate. If peace had been achieved, than Arafat would have had no one to justify his oppression with and would have lost power. This is not exclusive to the Israelis and Palestinians, for if we are to ever achieve a lasting peace than we must end tyranny in our world and spread freedom and democracy to every corner of the globe.

It's Wictory Wednesday!

In today's edition of Wictory Wednesday we are faxing Sen. John Kerry his SF-180 form to help him fulfill his promise of 101 days ago to sign and release his complete military records. You can find a link to the form, instructions, and the senator's fax numbers on Polipundit's post here. If you do decide to fax the form to Sen. Kerry please remember to be polite, courteous, and respectful. The Wictory Wednesday blogroll can be found on the right hand side of the site.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

The Extremist Excuse

This extremist tag that the Democrats in the Senate keep trying to attach to filibustered judicial nominees in order to justify their obstructionism is getting old. These nominees are only extremists in the sense that they do not subscribe to the Democrats' liberal ideology; for according to the left anyone who does not believe in abortion on demand and gay marriage is surely a judicial extremist who should never get within reaching distance of a Federal bench. If these nominees really were extremists than they would get rejected in an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Republicans do not want extremists on the bench anymore than Democrats do, and if a nominee really is an extremist, either to the right or to the left, do you think that Republican senators such as John McCain, Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins would ever vote for them?

Of course not.

The Democrats aren't filibustering these nominees because they are extremists, but rather because the federal judiciary has become the last institution in American government that the Democratic Party can hope to push their liberal views with. They no longer control the nation's popularly elected bodies, so they must use the bench to push liberal policies onto the rest of the nation. Allowing the promotion of judicial conservatives and judges who would rule based on what the framers intended is simply unacceptable, and thus they feel they have to break centuries-old Senate precedent and prevent these types of judges from receiving the up or down vote they deserve.

Trying to paint these nominees as extremist is nothing but a cover to draw attention away from their true motives, which is to prevent some judicial restraint from ever reaching the federal bench.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

The Only Way

This nation under the leadership of President Bush has decided to fight the war on terror by helping foster the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East. Democrats and even some realist Republicans have criticized this as dangerous and unrealistic, as nothing but the fantasies of a group of crazy neo-cons within the administration. Time and time again they have questioned why we are doing what we are doing in that region, and yesterday in a speech in Latvia the president gave them their answer:
We seek democracy in that region for the same reasons we spent decades working for democracy in Europe -- because freedom is the only reliable path to peace. If the Middle East continues to simmer in anger and resentment and hopelessness, caught in a cycle of repression and radicalism, it will produce terrorism of even greater audacity and destructive power. But if the peoples of that region gain the right of self-government, and find hopes to replace their hatreds, then the security of all free nations will be strengthened. We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability. We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others. And so, with confidence and resolve, we will stand for freedom across the broader Middle East.
Indeed, for the very reasons the president outlined above, the spread of freedom and democracy in the Islamic world and the Middle East is the only way terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism will ever be defeated. The oppression that had existed there bred resentment and hatred, and that hatred fueled the emergence of Islamic terrorism. What the president's narrow-minded critics can't seem to understand is that taking away that oppression and the hatred and resentment which are it's fruits are the only way to defeat terrorism.

The terrorists understand this, for if democracy didn't spell the doom of terrorism why are Zarqawi and all his thugs fighting so hard and desperately to defeat it's creation in Iraq? It's because replacing the region's most brutal and tyrannical regime with a stable democracy will embolden others in the region to seek their freedoms, and subsequently the hatred and resentment that has so permeated the region will be gone forever, and so too will the terrorism. This is why our efforts in Iraq are not a diversion away from the war on terror as the president's critics like to claim, but rather the central task in winning it.

Simply put, freedom and democracy are the only way to defeat terrorism and bring about peace, I just wish the president's critics understood this.

Hat Tip: Powerline

Friday, May 06, 2005

The Democrats' Problems

Saying that Victor Davis Hanson is the most astute and intelligent observer of current events is as true as saying the Pacific Ocean is full of sea water. In his most recent masterpiece he analyzes the multiple reasons why the Democratic Party hasn't won a lot of elections of late, basically summing it up as, "the United States does not suffer from the sort of oppression, poverty, or Vietnam nightmares of the 1950s and 1960s that created the present Democratic ideology. Thus calcified solutions of big government entitlements, race-based largesse, and knee-jerk suspicion of U.S. power abroad come off as either impractical or hysterical."

Clearly there are some more specific problems than this, but the fact that the contemporary Democratic Party is still stuck in it's Vietnam mindset basically sums up their problem. I won't elaborate any further, for Mr. Hanson's piece nails it on the head far better than I can, which is why I encourage you to take a few minutes and read this piece.

UPDATE (5/7/05 12:34 P.M.): The sage does it again.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Why We Fight



The picture above is one of the most heartbreaking pictures I have ever seen. How any class of human could inflict such a horrific evil upon innocent life such as this young girl saddens me beyond expression, and it puts in shockingly black and white terms the kind of animals we face in this War on Terror. The very same people who could indiscriminately take the life of this little girl are the same people who flew airplanes into the WTC towers and the Pentagon, and who walk into the streets of Israel and blow themselves up.

They are the modern face of evil, and there is no level that they won't sink below to destroy freedom and human rights throughout the world. Defeating these monsters is the challenge of our time and generation, and accomplishing this will take great amounts of perseverance, sacrifice, and courage. We in the free world must be up to that challenge however, for the cost of failing to defeat those who took this girl's life is simply more than any of us can bear.

We must fight to insure that animals such as these are no longer permitted to freely walk this earth and destroy innocent human life.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

The Hillary Trap

Barring some unforeseen miracle Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York will be the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. She has been pegged as the party's inevitable nominee since her election to the Senate in 2000, and she is currently running circles around every other Democratic hopeful in every poll I've seen. Her grassroots support within the party is tremendous, and her ability to garner support, publicity, and money will likely suffocate any poor chap who is unfortunate enough to run against her for the nomination.

But equal to or greater than that support for her within the Democratic Party is the opposition to her from within the Republican Party. Republicans can't stand her, and ever since "Hillarycare" in the early nineties she and her husband have been public enemy number one within the GOP. Just as Democratic money flows to her, so too does Republican money in opposition to her. The thought of another Clinton presidency terrifies the right, and one need only look at all the conservative organizations out there that exist for the sole purpose of opposing Sen. Clinton, STOP Hillary for example.

If you thought this most recent election was polarized, than just fasten down the hatches and lock the doors come '08, for if she does receive the nomination feverish armies in support and opposition to her will immediately mobilize. Sen. Clinton is one of those rare politicians where there really is no middle ground, you either love her or you hate her. A Clinton candidacy will bring out probably more money, more 520 and independent group action, and at least as much of a turnout, probably more than the last election.

A Clinton campaign on the face of it doesn't worry me a whole lot, for I believe she will be hardpressed to convince enough moderate to conservative voters to cast their ballot for her on election day. The fact that so much attention is being paid to her so early in the process doesn't help either, for the scrutiny on her attempts to move to the middle, Rasmussen Reports is currently running a "Hillary Meter" for example, will make it tough on her to casually temper her views or perceptions without swarms of pundits musing over how she is trying to move to the middle for political gain.

My main concern however, is that we Republicans will come off as anti-Hillary, instead of for our candidate and the agenda in which we want to move the country forward with. President Nixon once said that "those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself." By becoming so motivated by our strong distaste for Sen. Clinton we run the risk of becoming unhinged and unattractive to those whose votes we will try to be winning. We need to learn from our Democratic counterparts that coming out as only against something diminishes our appeal and turns off more voters than it turns on. In the last election Democrats had nothing to offer the country except opposition to President Bush, and that opposition often came off as blind hatred. The relentless attacks from Michael Moore, the MSM, and many within the party's own leadership left a bad taste in many American's mouths, and as a result the president won the first majority since his father back in '88.

We Republicans run the same risk if we become to absorbed in our dislike of Sen. Clinton. I by no means plan to support her should she be a candidate, but the person I will support will be someone who I believe is the best person to lead this country for the next four years. I will support that person, not oppose Sen. Clinton. My hope is that my Republican friends will take the same approach.

If election history has taught us anything, it is that to be successful you have to stand for what you support, not against what you oppose.

UPDATE (5/7/05 6:01 P.M.): Joe Klein of TIME Magazine addresses a possible Clinton candidacy. Though he makes some good points about why Sen. Clinton probably won't be successful, his description of the hate-filled right was a little amusing. How anyone on the left can decry the "free-range haters" on the right with a straight face is absurd, considering their own outright hatred and vitriol they have directed at President Bush.

UPDATE (7/3/05 1:19 P.M.): This post was featured in a blog roundup at Slate.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Media = LIBERALS

I've had enough, quit infusing what is supposed to be light-hearted family television with political issues! Take 7th Heaven for example...it used to be a decent show. Now, every Monday, the episode takes on some controversial topic focusing on one side of the spectrum (and I bet you can guess which side that is). Unfortunately, this is what 'wholesome and educational television' has come to. The Camden family is against guns, the war in Iraq and suprisingly in favor of relying on food stamps and Social Security to solve everyone's problems! Because in tonight's episode, a family struggled with making ends meet. Thanks to hybrid car-driving Reverend Camden, they were educated on the services that our government provides them. Why must liberals always try to weasel their way into our minds and slowly brainwash our families? It's because their ideas are so stupid that if they actually came right out and said it, there wouldn't be anyone but Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton left to defend their position.

You Can Produce All The Oil You Want, But Unless You Can Refine It.....

.....It won't make a bit of difference in lowering gas prices. The Chicago Sun Times had a very interesting editorial today on one of the major causes of rising gas prices here in America (though gas prices have fallen for the third straight week). The problem isn't so much that we are not importing or producing enough oil here at home, for crude oil imports hit 10.86 million barrels a day last week, the third highest average in history, but rather America's incapacity to refine that crude oil into gasoline. America's ability to refine crude has become so porous in fact, that we had to import over a million barrels of gasoline for the third straight week last week.

This isn't a problem that has just popped up on us either, for as the article points out there hasn't been an oil refinery facility built in America since the 70's. So what has been happening over the past thirty years is we have allowed our energy infrastructure to slowly decay while the demand for energy has steadily risen, by a third since 1976, leading to the shortage of energy right now and the high gas prices.

Though improving our refining capacity won't solve all the energy problems this nation faces, it will address many aspects of this problem. In his energy plan the president proposed building more refinery facilities on closed military bases, about a hundred of which are scattered throughout the nation. Doing this will go a long ways in insuring that more gasoline at a cheaper price is available at the pumps.

However this will only be a short term fix, for we need to create other forms of energy outside of fossil fuel that can meet our energy demands in the future. Fossil Fuels won't be available forever, so we must make sure we are prepared for that day whenever it may come. Some signs do exist that the transition from fossil fuels to other forms of energy has already begun, for sales of hybrid vehicles were up 80% last year.

By increasing oil production here at home, our capacity to refine that oil into gasoline, and developing more energy efficient technology, we as a nation are making sound energy choices that will alleviate the burden on this economy that high energy prices have become and the influence oil has on our foreign policy at the height of the War on Terror.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

British Elections This Week

Britons will head to the polls next week to decide what their parliament will look like and who their prime minister will be. Everybody, myself included, expects PM Tony Blair's Labour Party to win a comfortable victory over the Conservative Party, who in many ways resembles the American Democratic Party, not in ideology but in direction. The Tories are in disarray and really have no agenda or big ideas they can give to the British public, and after watching Conservative Leader Michael Howard on C-SPAN this weekend their only real pitch to the public is an attempted indictment on Prime Minister Blair. Just as the Democrats tried to label the president a liar in our recent election, the Tories are lobbing the same charge at Blair right now. This charge, completely false by the way, is the sign of a desperate party who can't find another way to try and win an election.

Though I'd undoubtedly side with the Tories on domestic policy, I hope that Tony Blair continues on as British prime minister. The Bush-Blair partnership is approaching the same status as the Roosevelt-Churchill and Reagan-Thatcher alliances, and together the two have forged a new direction in the Middle East and the world. Both the president and Prime Minister Blair have risked political life and limb on Iraq, yet as the leader of a left-of-center nation, Blair's gamble was much greater. Opposition to the war within Great Britain was overwhelming and most of Blair's own party stood at odds with him. If it hadn't been for Iraq, this election probably wouldn't even be close.

Blair knew all of this going in, and yet he decided to join the U.S. anyway because he believed that what we were doing was right. His belief in the spread of freedom and his eloquence in expressing that belief(check here and here) is truly admirable, and a leader who risks everything to do what he believes is right is all to rare these days.

My hope is that when Britons head to the polls this week they won't leave Tony Blair's courage and leadership unrewarded.

UPDATE (5/5/05 4:59 P.M.): Tony Blair's Labour Party has won a third consecutive term as majority party in parliament. Blair is not out of the woods yet however, for their majority will be smaller and there is a chance that fractions within Labour that are disenchanted with the prime minister's stance on Iraq might try and replace him.