"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."


Sunday, February 26, 2006

American Foreign Interests over Politics Please

There is very little of substance behind the impending port deal with a government run firm from the United Arab Emirates beyond bipartisan and baseless hysteria and political posturing. On the matter of port security the sale will change virtually nothing. The U.A.E. firm will run commercial operations while the Department of Homeland Security will continue to oversee security and inspections, just as it always has.

Moreover, that a company from an Islamic country should not be able to run the commercial operations of various American ports is an amplified version of the type of racial and ethnic profiling Democrats usually condemn. In a Friday column Charles Krauthammer spoke of the fact that the same Democrats who object to this port deal would cry injustice if "a citizen of the U.A.E. walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic" and was given "any more scrutiny than....my sweet 84-year-old mother." The hypocrisy is evident and obvious.

In that same column Mr. Krauthammer provided the only legitimate security concern associated with the deal’s consummation raised so far; the possibility that al-Qaeda sympathizers or agents within the company might, through the obvious cooperation and consultation that will have to take place between the U.A.E. company and D.H.S., become aware of sensitive port security information and share it with al-Qaeda members stationed either overseas or, possibly, in America.

This possibility is not motivating congressional opposition to the deal however; a desire to either, depending on what side of the aisle they are on, outflank the president on national security or establish their independence from him is.

But political motivations should not derail a deal when such an outcome could damage the diplomatic relationship with a country providing valuable assistance in the execution of the war on terror. The president is right to support the deal and would be right in vetoing any legislation which would invalidate it.

Hat Tip: OpinionJournal

Saturday, February 25, 2006

South Dakota Abortion Legislation

The South Dakota legislature passed a comprehensive piece of legislation yesterday which, if signed by the governor, would prohibit abortions in all circumstances excluding those performed to save the mother’s life.

Consensus among the punditry fashions the legislation as the next major challenge to Roe. Though I don’t believe anyone can speak to that quite yet, this bill will inevitably spark a challenge in federal court and, probably, a reversal. District and circuit courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions and precedent, which have decidedly frowned upon any statutory restrictions on abortion. If such narrowly constructed restrictions, such as those on partial-birth abortion, are antithetical to the constitution than surely so to is this bill.

Substantively, I would personally oppose the bill’s passage into law. I am generally pro-life and would support a general ban on abortion here in Washington State—provided that bill contained exceptions for victims of rape and incest, provisions absent from South Dakota’s version. I simply do not believe you can force a woman, victimized by either act, to carry a pregnancy to term in which they had no choice in creating.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Elite In Their Minds Only

Only in today’s beltway and current media and political culture is a furor such as that over the Cheney hunting incident possible. The incident itself was fairly benign in nature; an honest but unfortunate mistake. That it carries little, if any, relevant or news-worthy substance is painfully implicit.

Nevertheless, that news of the incident was not released to the press until the next day, and to a small-town Texas newspaper no less, agitated the Washington press corps into a state of furious and righteous indignation. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was berated by the White House press corps early in the week, most notably NBC correspondent David Gregory, for the delay and the supposed affront the vice president’s lack of forthcomingness had been on the "public’s right to know".

This behavior raises one really serious question, unrelated to those pointedly directed at Mr. McCllelan. It is one which I doubt David Gregory and his colleagues would have a good answer to. Instead of focusing on the real substantive issues of the day—such as Iraq, Iran, the NSA intercept program, etc.—why did the Washington press corps spend the entire week preoccupied with the fact that they weren’t given immediate notice of a meaningless hunting accident in which the vice president of the United States happened to be a party to?

It is perfectly legitimate to quibble—probably meaningless and small-minded, but legitimate—over whether, as a matter of public and press relations, it would have been wiser to release a public statement earlier, immediately after the victim had been taken care of and the proper authorities had been notified. But such a minor question or controversy surely does not warrant the veritable eruption we witnessed this past week, as if "Quailgate" was a modern equivalent to Watergate. Instead of doing their job by providing insightful and objective reporting on the meaningful news and issues of our time, the Washington press corps indulged in an unbecoming tantrum because they, the elite Washington press corps for goodness sake, were not informed of the incident until the next day.

Make no mistake, this outcry had nothing to do with any "public right to know", but everything to do with an elitist and narcissist press corps. They betrayed themselves as the unprofessional, sensationalistic, and arrogant horde we all suspected they were.

This faux scandal has demonstrated the Washington press corps is elite not in the exceptional level of work they do or the position they hold in the media profession, but in the value they mistakenly hold in themselves. They are elite in their own minds only.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

The Saddam Tapes

Authenticated tapes of meetings between Saddam Hussein and his various aides were released earlier this week. Nary a stir has arisen within the chattering classes however, and for obvious reason---they shed light on nothing we did not already know. They simply chronicle that under Saddam Hussein the nation of Iraq deliberately deceived the world about the existence of WMD in that country. As Charles Duelfer, the former head of the search for WMD following the U.S. invasion has pointed out, the Iraqi regime "had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted." These tapes are only further evidence of this.

With that said, there are reportedly thousands of documents and numerous tapes regarding Iraqi WMD that have yet to be translated, authenticated, and/or released. To ever fully discern the truth about Saddam's weapons program all these documents and tapes, as well as any other evidence left over, will have to be evaluated and released. The sooner the better.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Sen. Tom Coburn

Sen. Tom Coburn is no politician. A politician concerns himself more with politics than the good governance of the nation or his constituency. His main concern is re-election, thus he worries more about polls, photo-ops, publicity, sound-bites, and selfish, short-term convenience than the long-term national interest. He will follow the path of least political resistance, whether or not that path is ultimately the right one for the nation to venture down or not.

No, Sen. Coburn is a statesman. A statesman does the opposite of what I described above. Sen. Coburn is solely interested in the national interest. For example, he has led a crusade against earmarks because they elevate parochial interests above the national interest by creating burdensome deficits which, as George Will pointed out, "reverse the American tradition of making sacrifices for the benefit of rising generations." Despite this, politicians love earmarks. Bringing home the pork is always something they may crow about before their constituents come election time.

Another case in point; when running for congress in 1994 the senator promised to limit himself to three terms—a promise he kept. A politician would have made the same politically convenient promise and then found an equally convenient excuse to violate it if and when the opportunity arose.

Sen. Coburn has promised to only spend two terms in the Senate, should he be fortunate enough to be re-elected by the people of Oklahoma when his current term expires. If he is not it will not bother him however, "[t]he Republic will live on" as he puts it. He is simply more interested in shaming the Senate into governing responsibly then re-election and political survival(the central concern of the typical politician). Such statesmanship is far too scarce these days.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Majority Leader Boehner

The GOP House Caucus elected Congressman John Boehner of Ohio as majority leader last week. My first choice would have been Congressman Shadegg of Arizona, the purer small-government and reform-minded Republican of the three candidates. However Congressman Boehner was my clear second choice, miles ahead of the third candidate and assumed favorite, Majority Whip Blunt, whose ascension from whip to leader would have signaled nothing but a troubling complacency and satisfaction with the status quo among House Republicans.

Congressman Boehner’s victory is almost certainly a result of the realization among House Republicans that they can no longer get away with the status quo; but they in no way desire the wholesale upheaval Congressman Shadegg’s ascension to the top post would have entailed. Their compromise was John Boehner. The boat had to be rocked, they figured Congressman Boehner will rock it the least.

To Congressman Boehner’s credit though, he has embraced reform every step of the way. He has opposed the embarrassing prevalence of earmarks in the legislative process and has never personally employed the earmark tactic on behalf of his district. Moreover, he has proposed a comprehensive plan for getting the Republican majority back on track in the House.

The caucus had grown stagnant under the prior leadership and hopefully Congressman Boehner’s leadership will reinvigorate the Republican majority and shatter the legislative logjam that has descended upon the House and the capitol. A great tragedy it will be to have a working majority and do virtually nothing with it. It is now tasked to Majority Leader Boehner to stave off such a calamity.