"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."


Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The State of the Union

The recurring theme from the president’s address tonight was bipartisanship and national unity. In the beginning of the address the president declared his common purpose with congress and that "together we will make (the Union) stronger." He concluded by declaring that we as a nation will "show....courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom’s advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land."

In between he called for the creation of a bipartisan commission to analyze the effects the impending retirement of the baby boomers will have on the federal government. He declared that both parties deserve credit for the continuing social renaissance within America (less abortions, less teen pregnancies, less welfare cases, less violent crimes, less drug abuse, etc,). And he cited the character of the American people as the nation’s greatest strength, as well as Americans decency towards others.

This president clearly sees himself as the leader of the nation that will lead the world, strong and unified. He made it clear he is the president of the United States, with an emphasis on "United".

The address was a refreshing alternative to all of the noxious partisan rancor that has consumed Washington of late. I suspect the president’s ascendant tone will appeal to those more concerned with getting things done than engaging in and listening to vacuous partisan warfare.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

McGavick-Cantwell Senate Race

I attended a GOP dinner the other night in which candidate for U.S. Senate Mike McGavick was the featured speaker. Very impressive individual. Charismatic, articulate, and seemingly genuine. He spoke without a prompt, notes, or even a podium; smoothly delivering his remarks from start to finish.

Pitted side by side with Sen. Maria Cantwell he will likely shine. She is nowhere near the talented speaker nor public figure Mr. McGavick is. Sen. Cantwell looks uncomfortable and small when delivering public comments. Mr. McGavick looks the part of a U.S. senator, which is a large part of the equation in getting elected to the U.S. Senate. Do not expect the Cantwell campaign to give Mr. McGavick more than one debate in the fall.

With that said, Mr. McGavick still faces a rough road, for various reasons. He is largely unknown within the state. This is a Democratic state where Republicans have won virtually nothing of late. Moreover, there is a perceived trend towards Democrats this election cycle, fueled by President Bush’s soft approval ratings and scandal-plagued Republicans in congress.

To overcome this Mr. McGavick will need to focus on building his public profile and name recognition. He will need to focus on the issues voters care about—the war on terror, the economy, etc. The public is not as concerned with the so called "Culture of Corruption" in congress as Democrats think they are; and they will be disappointed if their candidates such as Sen. Cantwell make this their main campaign issue. More than anything, Americans are concerned with national security and their personal safety—Mr McGavick would be wise to structure his message accordingly.

Mr. McGavick is a strong candidate and would make a strong senator in my view. Sen. Cantwell is not. She has had an undistinguished record of accomplishment so far and appears frail and unassertive in public. On a level playing field with all things equal Mr. McGavick would undoubtedly defeat Sen. Cantwell handily.

The playing field is not level however and all is not equal. Sen. Cantwell enjoys the advantages of incumbency and party affiliation. Mr. McGavick is still a largely unknown entity within the state and needs to sufficiently introduce himself to the voters before he can legitimately and substantively challenge the senator on the issues.

Accomplishing this as well as overcoming a Democrats’ natural advantage in a Democratic-leaning state this time around may be a task too tough to ask for. Mike McGavick is a strong candidate however and a strong campaign will leave him in a strong position for another Senate run in the future—as Dino Rossi’s strong but ultimately unsuccessful gubernatorial run of 2004 has left him in a strong position to run again in 2008.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Conservatives Win in Canada

Conservatives have won the election in Canada tonight and will lead that nation’s government for the first time in thirteen years. A marked change in Canadian politics will ensue.

Conservatives have pledged to diminish some of the bureaucratic regulations on Canada’s social programs as well as cut taxes and return greater power back to the nation’s provinces and territories. These reforms will be a boon to Canada’s economy and subsequently the commercial trade with the United States, which already amounts to $1.5 billion a day.

Moreover, a Prime Minister Harper will mean a Canada more congenial and attentive to American concerns than the previous government. You can expect an end to the Canadian sniping on matters such as Kyoto and Iraq, as well as one more hospitable to the idea of joining the U.S. missile defense plan.

Most importantly, Harper and his fellow Conservatives have expressed a desire to strengthen border security and make it tougher for terrorists to use the U.S.-Canadian border as an entry point into this country(a similar desire from the Mexican government would be real nice as well). Terrorists have tried to enter through the northern border before and greater Canadian security participation and attention there is great news for America.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Sharon's Legacy

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke of last week has knocked him from the political stage. At this point it is hard to envision any scenario in which he could return to his post. As a result a great deal of uncertainty now looms over Israel and the Middle East peace process. Sharon’s tenure as prime minister supplied the steady leadership and much of the impetus responsible for fostering long-awaited progress in the peace process.

As a benefit of Prime Minister Sharon’s stewardship Israel has not duplicated the mistakes of Oslo. Instead of empowering tyranny and continuously strengthening Yasser Arafat, Israel shunned the late chairman, leaving him marginalized and isolated in his final years.

Moreover, the security wall being built, despite the demurrals of the Palestinians and much of the international community, has largely kept Palestinian suicide bombers off of Israeli streets. Because of his fortitude, and along with his willingness to target terrorist leaders for assassination, terror is no longer a viable political tool for the Palestinian Authority.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in his column of last week, Prime Minister Sharon provided a third way in Israeli politics. He did not futilely attempt to make peace with a PLO uninterested in peace; but neither did he try to rule and govern a "young, radicalized, growing Arab population committed to Palestinian independence." Instead, Prime Minister Sharon has withdrawn behind an Israel with a newly designed border defined by the security fence. The result has been a "smaller but secure and demographically Jewish Israel."

Prime Minister Sharon’s departure from the political stage however jeopardizes this progress and the prospect of continued progress in the future. Sharon is probably the only leader within Israel with the clout and credibility to lead Israel along this third way. No such leader resides within Israel’s two major political parties, right wing Likud and left wing Labor. It is unclear whether one resides within Sharon’s newly crafted Kadima party. Hopefully one does—the prospect of peace and security in the Middle East may depend on it.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Footnote: "Confirm Judge Alito"

Washington Post, Editorial, January 15, 2006:

Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.

I would submit that, unfortunately, that "dangerous precedent" has been set, as one-sided as it may be. Republicans continue to follow the historical precedent of voting to confirm the nominee of another party even if they strongly disagree with his/her jurisprudence—so long as that nominee is adequately qualified. The nominations and confirmations of President Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, bear this out.

Democrats on the other hand poisoned the well nearly twenty years ago with the rejection of Reagan appointee Robert Bork. Judge Bork was a legal genius and one of the most qualified and thoughtful Supreme Court nominees in the nation’s history. He had a constitutionalist/originalist record and jurisprudence however which conflicted with the Democrats’ own, often extra-constitutional, jurisprudence. As a result Judge Bork was slandered, nearly the minute his nomination was announced, as someone who would turn back the clock decades on civil rights (a term regrettably still employed against all nominees with a jurisprudence similar in some way to Judge Bork’s).

What we are left with are confirmation votes decided on largely party line votes determined by the nominee’s supposed ideology as opposed to their qualifications, temperament, and integrity. That precedent The Washington Post fears is a current reality. The Post need not fear any "dangerous precedent" to be realized in the future, for that precedent has been a reality for nearly twenty years now. What the Post really needs to fear, and I suspect what it does actually fear, is that Republicans will grow tired of this double-standard and treat the Supreme Court nominees of Democratic presidents in the same churlish manner as Democrats treat the nominees of Republican presidents.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Confirm Judge Alito

As a telling sign of the predicament Senate Democrats are in The Washington Post has endorsed the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Post cites various reservations they have with a Justice Alito—he defers to the elected branches too often, he has read civil rights statutes and precedents too narrowly on occasion, he has an unpromising approach to federalism—but opines that to reject his nomination would create negative "long-term implications" towards the confirmation process.

It is clear, in the Post’s view as well my own, that Judge Alito is clearly qualified for the Supreme Court and falls well within the judicial mainstream, whatever that is. Democratic attempts at smearing the judge have clearly failed—every rational individual recognizes as much.

The only grounds remaining on which to oppose him are purely ideological. As the Post aptly points out however, for a senator to oppose Judge Alito on purely ideological grounds is to "believe there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law—which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law." There is one law and Judge Alito’s tenure on the Third Circuit has demonstrated that he recognizes this.

The president is entitled to his choice for the Court, provided that choice is qualified and respectful of the written law of the United States. Judge Alito is. In two months of public debate and four days of hearings Senate Democrats have failed to establish otherwise.

Barring some unforeseeable development, Judge Alito will deservedly be confirmed. Any futile semblance of opposition or obstructionism Senate Democrats advance will only betray those culpable as the political ideologues we all expected they were.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Pence For Majority Leader

I’ve made my dissatisfaction with Rep. Tom Delay’s tenure as House Majority Leader known, and I am pleased that he will not be re-assuming his leadership duties if and when he settles his legal issues in Texas.

From this point forward House Republicans should resolve themselves to finding a leader who will embody the principles of limited, honest, and accountable government that all Republicans should represent. They have not of late and it is about time they did. For far too long our values have not reflected our actions.

The ideal replacement for Rep. Delay would be, in my estimation, Mike Pence of Indiana. Rep. Pence chairs the Republican Study Committee, devoted to advancing the principles of "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government." He has received an 89% score from Citizens Against Government Waste and The Washington Post has described him as someone who delivers "conservative opinions with the even tones and polite demeanor of his Midwest upbringing."

At a time when the House Republican conference looks and acts increasingly more arrogant and unaccountable, these are the exact kind of traits House Republicans should be looking for in their next leader.