In an earlier post I opined that we as Americans should stand for life and severely limit the practice of abortion in this country, which is robbing future generations. I believed then as I believe now that human life is a gift from God with limitless worth, and that the practice of abortion robs us of the gifts and talents that each life brings. The call of not only myself but millions of others to protect human life must now be renewed with the emerging debate over human cloning. Recently Harvard University announced their intention to create human embryos for the purpose of research. The university then declared, disingenuously I might add, that they are opposed to human cloning, that the creation of embryos would be for research only, and that the embryos will be destroyed once they have outlived their usefulness.
To do this would not only be disgusting, it would contradict every sense of human ethics and decency we as a nation hold dear. Human life is not a commodity to be created and destroyed for research. It is not something that should be kept in labs and destroyed as if it were a lab rat. The day we as Americans permit this kind of activity will be our darkest.
Those supporting cloning for research say that opposition to it is opposition to progress, that we are standing in the way of horrific diseases being cured. But to what lengths are we to go for progress? I'm not the only one who believes it is morally reprehensible to destroy the lives of future generations to prolong the existence of current ones. The scientific community who supports such activities need to stop demagoguing the issue and realize that they are not God. They have no right to decide whether we discard all matter of ethics in the name of progress and they certainly have no right to create and destroy human life.
We as Americans must stand for life once again, for a line needs to be drawn somewhere before we as a society become an actual "Brave New World".
Monday, February 28, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
The Emerging GOP Generation?
From the early 1930's all the way through the 1970's the Democratic Party dominated American politics. During that period Republicans held the White House just sixteen of the forty years. Democrats held huge majorities in both houses of congress and a majority of state legislatures. At the height of power they held nearly forty of the nation's fifty governor's mansions. Simply put, the Democrats owned the halls of government and every thing that came out of them.
But all that began to change in 1980 when a wise and optimistic man named Ronald Reagan rode a grassroots rebellion straight to the White House. Americans were simply beginning to grow tired of the gorilla that had become government and the deterioration of their traditional culture. No longer did the Democratic Party stand for helping the common man at home while advancing liberty and freedom abroad. The downfall of the Democrats left a void that Republicans were quick to fill. In the twenty-five years since than Republicans have steadily rose to become America's majority party ( you can read one of my earlier posts on how we got from then to now here).
However new numbers seem to be suggesting that the GOP might be moving into that dominant status the Democrats enjoyed for so long. Whereas Democrats used to enjoy a two-to-one party affiliation advantage, that number was tied between the two parties at 37% in the last election. This parity is not only a move up from thirty years ago, but just eight years ago, for Democrats enjoyed an affiliation advantage in both the '96 and '00 elections. If we continue in the same direction Republicans will soon transcend the Democrats in party ID, presumably as early as '06 or '08.
If you look at a different set of numbers however, you could argue that the GOP has already surpassed the Democratic Party. As Alexander K. McClure points out, President Bush won 250 House Districts and 31 states in the last election (or 62 Senators). Furthermore, in a recent column Robert Novak cites recent projections that show red states are likely to gain 6 electoral votes following the 2010 census, with Texas and Florida each gaining three. This number coincides with the fact that President Bush won ninety-six of the country's hundred fastest growing counties. Americans are simply migrating to Republican states where friendlier business climates and greater prosperity exist, while those in Blue America wallow in stagnation caused by over regulation and low birth rates.
To sum up, if we continue down the same path we have been going for the last twenty-five years, we will soon be entering a new generation of GOP dominance, very similar to New Deal generation that dominated for so long in the 1900's. This reiterates once again the necessity for Democrats to compete in middle America, where they have steadily lost ground. This also brings up the question whether Howard Dean is really the right man to be leading the party, for we live in a center-right nation and I don't think someone on the far left is going to help stop the bleeding, he'll only increase it.
Hat Tip: Polipundit
But all that began to change in 1980 when a wise and optimistic man named Ronald Reagan rode a grassroots rebellion straight to the White House. Americans were simply beginning to grow tired of the gorilla that had become government and the deterioration of their traditional culture. No longer did the Democratic Party stand for helping the common man at home while advancing liberty and freedom abroad. The downfall of the Democrats left a void that Republicans were quick to fill. In the twenty-five years since than Republicans have steadily rose to become America's majority party ( you can read one of my earlier posts on how we got from then to now here).
However new numbers seem to be suggesting that the GOP might be moving into that dominant status the Democrats enjoyed for so long. Whereas Democrats used to enjoy a two-to-one party affiliation advantage, that number was tied between the two parties at 37% in the last election. This parity is not only a move up from thirty years ago, but just eight years ago, for Democrats enjoyed an affiliation advantage in both the '96 and '00 elections. If we continue in the same direction Republicans will soon transcend the Democrats in party ID, presumably as early as '06 or '08.
If you look at a different set of numbers however, you could argue that the GOP has already surpassed the Democratic Party. As Alexander K. McClure points out, President Bush won 250 House Districts and 31 states in the last election (or 62 Senators). Furthermore, in a recent column Robert Novak cites recent projections that show red states are likely to gain 6 electoral votes following the 2010 census, with Texas and Florida each gaining three. This number coincides with the fact that President Bush won ninety-six of the country's hundred fastest growing counties. Americans are simply migrating to Republican states where friendlier business climates and greater prosperity exist, while those in Blue America wallow in stagnation caused by over regulation and low birth rates.
To sum up, if we continue down the same path we have been going for the last twenty-five years, we will soon be entering a new generation of GOP dominance, very similar to New Deal generation that dominated for so long in the 1900's. This reiterates once again the necessity for Democrats to compete in middle America, where they have steadily lost ground. This also brings up the question whether Howard Dean is really the right man to be leading the party, for we live in a center-right nation and I don't think someone on the far left is going to help stop the bleeding, he'll only increase it.
Hat Tip: Polipundit
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Hopping On The Train
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called for changes in that country's election laws today. The new reforms would allow more than one candidate to compete for the presidency, much different from the current system, where the Egyptian Parliament selects a candidate and a referendum takes place within the country where voters are allowed to check either "yes" or "no". If the new law passes, election of the presidency will be a direct election with multiple candidates.
This is encouraging news, but talk alone never accomplished anything. Mubarak needs to follow through on this promise and the elections, set for September, must be free and fair. Mubarak must also allow all parties to participate, for elections can only be free and fair when everyone is given an equal chance to run. It is the responsibility of America and the world to keep the pressure on Mubarak, and we must demand full transparency so the international community may rest assured that these elections are not tainted.
But with all that said, this announcement is further validation of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as the Lebanese are demanding their full democratic rights, Egypt can see the train is headed towards democracy in the Middle East and they don't want to be left behind. Freedom is contagious, and democrats in the Middle East who saw Iraqis vote last month are asking themselves, "Why not us?" Leaders in the region are all admitting that times are changing, and that no longer can regimes deny their people their full democratic rights.
If it weren't for the United States and President Bush, none of this would be possible and the train would still be in the station.
This is encouraging news, but talk alone never accomplished anything. Mubarak needs to follow through on this promise and the elections, set for September, must be free and fair. Mubarak must also allow all parties to participate, for elections can only be free and fair when everyone is given an equal chance to run. It is the responsibility of America and the world to keep the pressure on Mubarak, and we must demand full transparency so the international community may rest assured that these elections are not tainted.
But with all that said, this announcement is further validation of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as the Lebanese are demanding their full democratic rights, Egypt can see the train is headed towards democracy in the Middle East and they don't want to be left behind. Freedom is contagious, and democrats in the Middle East who saw Iraqis vote last month are asking themselves, "Why not us?" Leaders in the region are all admitting that times are changing, and that no longer can regimes deny their people their full democratic rights.
If it weren't for the United States and President Bush, none of this would be possible and the train would still be in the station.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Assessing Our Presidents: Bill Clinton
One of the worst kept secrets in America is the Republican Party's rank and file distaste for Bill Clinton. Some would call it hatred, but after seeing the Democrats' hatred of President Bush it is hard to justify such a claim. The main reason behind Republicans' distaste of Clinton is two-fold, one part being his personal moral corruption, the second being that he won two terms despite it. While I certainly abhor Clinton's sense of ethics, and his absolute disgrace of the Oval Office and the presidency, there is no denying that there were a few notable achievements during Clinton's two terms. As a matter of fact, I could easily argue that the presidency of Bill Clinton was simply an extension of the Reagan presidency.
Clinton's three greatest achievements were all Reagan platforms; NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the balanced budget. NAFTA was first proposed by President Reagan than negotiated and agreed upon under Bush 41, Clinton simply signed it. Welfare Reform was also a Reagan proposal, and Dick Morris convinced Clinton that failure to sign it would jeopardize his reelection. Finally, the supply-side policies of the eighties led to the robust growth and surpluses in the nineties, Clinton was just fortunate to be sitting in office throughout it all. Without a Democrat in office, it is unlikely that NAFTA and Welfare Reform ever would have passed, for Clinton was able to garner support for these measures within his party that would be absent had George H.W. Bush still been in office. It took a Democrat to convince Democrats to go against their free trade and zero accountability slants.
Other than this, very little of significance occurred during Clinton's tenure. No major crisis or event challenged the nation, nor did he change the nation's course in any way. Unlike the current President Bush, who seeks to change the status quo, Clinton artfully rolled with the country's conservative current, able to claim credit for a Republican Congress' achievements. When history passes it's judgment on Clinton's eight years, it will regard them as insignificant, with the most memorable episode being the Lewinsky scandal which epitomized Clinton's overall moral bankruptcy. With a current president who has sought to reshape not just the country but the world, nary a passing thought will be paid to his predecessor's time in office.
Clinton's three greatest achievements were all Reagan platforms; NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the balanced budget. NAFTA was first proposed by President Reagan than negotiated and agreed upon under Bush 41, Clinton simply signed it. Welfare Reform was also a Reagan proposal, and Dick Morris convinced Clinton that failure to sign it would jeopardize his reelection. Finally, the supply-side policies of the eighties led to the robust growth and surpluses in the nineties, Clinton was just fortunate to be sitting in office throughout it all. Without a Democrat in office, it is unlikely that NAFTA and Welfare Reform ever would have passed, for Clinton was able to garner support for these measures within his party that would be absent had George H.W. Bush still been in office. It took a Democrat to convince Democrats to go against their free trade and zero accountability slants.
Other than this, very little of significance occurred during Clinton's tenure. No major crisis or event challenged the nation, nor did he change the nation's course in any way. Unlike the current President Bush, who seeks to change the status quo, Clinton artfully rolled with the country's conservative current, able to claim credit for a Republican Congress' achievements. When history passes it's judgment on Clinton's eight years, it will regard them as insignificant, with the most memorable episode being the Lewinsky scandal which epitomized Clinton's overall moral bankruptcy. With a current president who has sought to reshape not just the country but the world, nary a passing thought will be paid to his predecessor's time in office.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
The Nuclear Alternative
One of the more prominent examples that has epitomized the Democratic Party's downfall has been their filibustering of lower court judicial nominees. Trying to justify their actions by claiming the nominees were extremists, the Democrats have in fact been going to desperate lengths to prevent these nominees from ever reaching an up or down vote due to the nominees' pro-life positions. This strategy is unprecedented in American history, and the obstruction has not gone without consequence. By turning off socially conservative voters, the Democrats essentially forfeited every southern and plain state to Republicans. In both these regions six Senate seats were up for grabs, Democrats won only one of those contests. Furthermore, the man who crafted this obstruction strategy, former Minority Leader Tom Daschle, lost his seat as well.
With clear proof that the country rejects obstructionist politics you'd think the Democrats would quit. That's not the case however, for new Minority Leader Harry Reid seems just as intent as his predecessor was to ride straight off the cliff. Continued obstruction and filibustering will only lead the Democrats to further losses in '06, with greater GOP majorities as a result. But Republicans aren't willing to wait that long, for the increased judicial activism has brought about the need to bring in strong, conservative judges who will interpret the law, not change it.
So the question now becomes what Republicans can do to bring the filibusters to their deserved end. The most discussed option has become the "nuclear" option, or changing the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters on lower-court judicial nominees. To do this all Republicans would need to do is appeal to the chair, Vice-President Cheney, for a rules change, with only a simple majority of fifty-one votes needed to pass it.
I on the other hand would go a different route. Instead of simply allowing the Democrats to sign a pledge that they will filibuster should it come to the floor, force the Democrats to actually go through with an old style filibuster, bringing out the cots and everything. This would force the Democrats to stand in front of the cameras and try to justify their shutting down of the Senate, and it would bring further scrutiny upon actions that the MSM has tried to hide under the carpet.
Republicans should stop allowing Democrats a pass. If the Democrats are so intent on blocking judges than force them to go to all lengths to achieve that. Put the onus on them, make them responsible for bringing the Senate to a standstill. It's high time that the Democrats' determination be put to the test. Making them stand endlessly on the Senate floor with the whole nation watching would accomplish just that.
With clear proof that the country rejects obstructionist politics you'd think the Democrats would quit. That's not the case however, for new Minority Leader Harry Reid seems just as intent as his predecessor was to ride straight off the cliff. Continued obstruction and filibustering will only lead the Democrats to further losses in '06, with greater GOP majorities as a result. But Republicans aren't willing to wait that long, for the increased judicial activism has brought about the need to bring in strong, conservative judges who will interpret the law, not change it.
So the question now becomes what Republicans can do to bring the filibusters to their deserved end. The most discussed option has become the "nuclear" option, or changing the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters on lower-court judicial nominees. To do this all Republicans would need to do is appeal to the chair, Vice-President Cheney, for a rules change, with only a simple majority of fifty-one votes needed to pass it.
I on the other hand would go a different route. Instead of simply allowing the Democrats to sign a pledge that they will filibuster should it come to the floor, force the Democrats to actually go through with an old style filibuster, bringing out the cots and everything. This would force the Democrats to stand in front of the cameras and try to justify their shutting down of the Senate, and it would bring further scrutiny upon actions that the MSM has tried to hide under the carpet.
Republicans should stop allowing Democrats a pass. If the Democrats are so intent on blocking judges than force them to go to all lengths to achieve that. Put the onus on them, make them responsible for bringing the Senate to a standstill. It's high time that the Democrats' determination be put to the test. Making them stand endlessly on the Senate floor with the whole nation watching would accomplish just that.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
And The Fire Spreads
Thousands took to the streets in Lebanon yesterday protesting Syrian occupation of that country and demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Syrian troops. Lebanon is set to have parliamentary elections this spring and the citizens of that country want them to take place without Syrian interference. The entire episode was strikingly similar to the nature of protests that took place within the Ukraine last November and December, where millions took to the streets demanding a fair election free of Russian interference.
The similarities between the two episodes are not a coincidence. Even the most stubborn cynic would have a hard time arguing that those protesting in Lebanon would have summoned the strength were it not for the inspiration of the democrats in Ukraine and the heroic acts of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Empowered by the establishment of liberty in other countries, the people of Lebanon are now demanding full sovereignty and freedom in their country. As President Bush declared in his second inaugural, the "untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
The fire of freedom is untamed, and the more people are given their freedom the more it will embolden others to demand theirs. America must lead the rest of the world and stand by the Lebanese people who are demanding their rights, ourselves demanding that Syria keep it's promise and leave Lebanon at once. When that happens, and Lebanon follows the path of it's Middle East cousins by having free elections, we will win yet another victory for freedom and democracy.
The similarities between the two episodes are not a coincidence. Even the most stubborn cynic would have a hard time arguing that those protesting in Lebanon would have summoned the strength were it not for the inspiration of the democrats in Ukraine and the heroic acts of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Empowered by the establishment of liberty in other countries, the people of Lebanon are now demanding full sovereignty and freedom in their country. As President Bush declared in his second inaugural, the "untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
The fire of freedom is untamed, and the more people are given their freedom the more it will embolden others to demand theirs. America must lead the rest of the world and stand by the Lebanese people who are demanding their rights, ourselves demanding that Syria keep it's promise and leave Lebanon at once. When that happens, and Lebanon follows the path of it's Middle East cousins by having free elections, we will win yet another victory for freedom and democracy.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Mending Fences
The president's current trip through Europe is being called by many in the MSM a "fence mending" tour. They call it this because most within the MSM believe the president has much to apologize for to the Europeans, for he shamefully ignored the advice of our wiser, smarter European cousins and went into Iraq. Not only this, he unilaterally pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, which served as a shameful slap in the face of the Europeans.
This is all of course absurd. Recent events on the ground in Iraq have shown that President Bush was right and the Europeans, specifically France and Germany, were wrong. In regards to the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush was absolutely right to pull out of it, for it would unfairly hurt American businesses while leaving those in Europe untouched. God forbid that the president of the United States actually look out for America's interests.
No, if anything it is the Europeans who need to do the "fence mending". Better yet, if they really want to improve relations they need to do some serious self-reflection, for it is their loss of moral clarity that has truly done harm to the trans-Atlantic alliance. From the lead up to war in Iraq until now, many in Europe have snubbed their nose at our efforts in Iraq, condescendingly opposing and undermining the very same actions we are taking in Iraq that freed them from Hitler's control sixty years ago. Enjoying all their full freedoms, they have had the audacity to say that others are not ready or can't be free.
Even worse, they based much of their opposition to Saddam's ouster on the profits they were bringing in under Saddam. This lack of moral clarity has shown itself time and time again over the last couple of years. It is a lack of moral clarity that leads someone to decry all the civilian deaths in Iraq while just a few years prior looking the other way as Saddam murdered his own people. Because of this the president can be forgiven for not exactly taking what these people advise to heart.
Our relationship with Europe will never be what it used to be until all of this changes. President Bush can make nice with Chirac and Schroeder all he wants, but until these leaders and their countries fully align themselves on the side of freedom they will have little use to us. It is Europe, not the president, that has some fence mending to do.
This is all of course absurd. Recent events on the ground in Iraq have shown that President Bush was right and the Europeans, specifically France and Germany, were wrong. In regards to the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush was absolutely right to pull out of it, for it would unfairly hurt American businesses while leaving those in Europe untouched. God forbid that the president of the United States actually look out for America's interests.
No, if anything it is the Europeans who need to do the "fence mending". Better yet, if they really want to improve relations they need to do some serious self-reflection, for it is their loss of moral clarity that has truly done harm to the trans-Atlantic alliance. From the lead up to war in Iraq until now, many in Europe have snubbed their nose at our efforts in Iraq, condescendingly opposing and undermining the very same actions we are taking in Iraq that freed them from Hitler's control sixty years ago. Enjoying all their full freedoms, they have had the audacity to say that others are not ready or can't be free.
Even worse, they based much of their opposition to Saddam's ouster on the profits they were bringing in under Saddam. This lack of moral clarity has shown itself time and time again over the last couple of years. It is a lack of moral clarity that leads someone to decry all the civilian deaths in Iraq while just a few years prior looking the other way as Saddam murdered his own people. Because of this the president can be forgiven for not exactly taking what these people advise to heart.
Our relationship with Europe will never be what it used to be until all of this changes. President Bush can make nice with Chirac and Schroeder all he wants, but until these leaders and their countries fully align themselves on the side of freedom they will have little use to us. It is Europe, not the president, that has some fence mending to do.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Time For Change In The Evergreen State
For over twenty years now Democrats have resided in the Washington State governor's mansion. Both houses of our state legislature are currently controlled by Democrats. We haven't awarded our eleven electoral votes to a Republican presidential nominee since President Reagan in '84.
And does anyone really wonder why Washington has one of the most sluggish economies in the nation?
Thanks to over taxation and over regulation businesses have been on a mass exodus from our state for quite a long time. Now, our representatives in government think it is their right to infringe on our personal property. Just recently a bill was proposed by a Democratic legislator that if passed would prohibit property owners from collecting rain water on their own property without a permit. This isn't the end of it however, for the King County City Council recently passed an ordinance that restricts property owners' activities on their own piece of land. As one affected property owner, and a Democrat until the new ordinance passed explained, her property is now "worthless". Her dog can only run free on two of the five acres she owns, and she needs an $800 dollar permit to simply pick raspberries on her own property.
"How can government overstep so much?'' she rightly asked County Executive Ron Sims at a town meeting. She isn't alone in her indignation either, for there were thousands of affected landowners protesting the ordinance at the meeting as well.
I join their indignation, for even though I do not live in King County, and even though I do not own property, I strongly believe that this type of government action hurts us all. It is laid out in the Declaration of Independence that each individual is entitled to "the pursuit of happiness". This means being able to own property and being able to enjoy that property. By the message our local and state government has been sending us in the Evergreen State, we no longer have that right.
State Democrats can only get away with this for so long, for sooner or later Washingtonians are going to grow tired of this state's larger than life government. When that time comes, and I hope it's soon, they are going to become more and more receptive to what we Republicans have been saying all along: government is beholden to the people, not the other way around, and it's time Democrats get that message loud and clear.
Hat Tip: Sound Politics
And does anyone really wonder why Washington has one of the most sluggish economies in the nation?
Thanks to over taxation and over regulation businesses have been on a mass exodus from our state for quite a long time. Now, our representatives in government think it is their right to infringe on our personal property. Just recently a bill was proposed by a Democratic legislator that if passed would prohibit property owners from collecting rain water on their own property without a permit. This isn't the end of it however, for the King County City Council recently passed an ordinance that restricts property owners' activities on their own piece of land. As one affected property owner, and a Democrat until the new ordinance passed explained, her property is now "worthless". Her dog can only run free on two of the five acres she owns, and she needs an $800 dollar permit to simply pick raspberries on her own property.
"How can government overstep so much?'' she rightly asked County Executive Ron Sims at a town meeting. She isn't alone in her indignation either, for there were thousands of affected landowners protesting the ordinance at the meeting as well.
I join their indignation, for even though I do not live in King County, and even though I do not own property, I strongly believe that this type of government action hurts us all. It is laid out in the Declaration of Independence that each individual is entitled to "the pursuit of happiness". This means being able to own property and being able to enjoy that property. By the message our local and state government has been sending us in the Evergreen State, we no longer have that right.
State Democrats can only get away with this for so long, for sooner or later Washingtonians are going to grow tired of this state's larger than life government. When that time comes, and I hope it's soon, they are going to become more and more receptive to what we Republicans have been saying all along: government is beholden to the people, not the other way around, and it's time Democrats get that message loud and clear.
Hat Tip: Sound Politics
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Another Stupid Comment
Adding to his already lengthy list of gaffes, new DNC Chair Howard Dean recently had this to say in a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus:
Hat Tip: From The Bleachers
You think the Republicans could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.And Democrats actually believe this guy will help their party? In what way will stupid and insensitive comments such as these attract those who voted Republican in the last election? This kind of rhetoric might make the MoveOn and Michael Moore crowd feel good, but it will only alienate the rest of America.
Hat Tip: From The Bleachers
Negroponte To Be New DNI
In a press conference earlier today President Bush nominated current ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte as the nation's first National Intelligence Director. Ambassador Negroponte's main role will be to oversee fifteen of the nation's intelligence agencies, bringing them under one umbrella. Furthermore, Negroponte will also be tasked with delivering the daily security briefing to the president, something that had fallen to the CIA and FBI directors.
From what I've heard Negroponte has always been somewhat of a "ruthless" operator, unaffected by political pressure and risk. This is all fine and dandy, but I'm still skeptical that the creation of this new post will make much of a difference. The 9/11 Commission hailed this as the cure all for the nation's intelligence woes, and many in congress were all to ready to follow every beckoning order from the commission. The intelligence problems that led to our inability to prevent 9/11 were not due to a lack of bureaucracy however, but were a result of institutional walls preventing agencies form communicating with each other and a lack of good human intelligence.
The PATRIOT Act took care of the first problem, the second one still hasn't been addressed. Many of the intelligence cuts that took place during the Clinton years were justified by the rise of greater technologies. Supposedly, satellites and unmanned drones would be able to replace on the ground spies, and it would be a lot less messy. This is flawed however, for satellites and drones can never make up for good human intelligence, they can only compliment it. The intelligence failures that led to 9/11 were a result of the fact that we did not adequately infiltrate al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations. Simply adding more bureaucracy and red tape is not going to fix this.
Now maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, and maybe centralizing intelligence will work. I just happen to believe that having all the intelligence brought in by the assorted agencies going through a one man filter isn't all that great of an idea. Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard, argued quite persuasively that having the agencies compete for saliency is the best model. That way, intelligence organizations have incentive to seek the most accurate, valuable intelligence, lest they lose the trust and the ear of the president. As is the case with just about everything, competition is the best method of attaining optimum quality.
Simply put, if we want to insure a sound intelligence gathering apparatus in America, than the best road to go down is bringing about more spies and less bureaucracy.
From what I've heard Negroponte has always been somewhat of a "ruthless" operator, unaffected by political pressure and risk. This is all fine and dandy, but I'm still skeptical that the creation of this new post will make much of a difference. The 9/11 Commission hailed this as the cure all for the nation's intelligence woes, and many in congress were all to ready to follow every beckoning order from the commission. The intelligence problems that led to our inability to prevent 9/11 were not due to a lack of bureaucracy however, but were a result of institutional walls preventing agencies form communicating with each other and a lack of good human intelligence.
The PATRIOT Act took care of the first problem, the second one still hasn't been addressed. Many of the intelligence cuts that took place during the Clinton years were justified by the rise of greater technologies. Supposedly, satellites and unmanned drones would be able to replace on the ground spies, and it would be a lot less messy. This is flawed however, for satellites and drones can never make up for good human intelligence, they can only compliment it. The intelligence failures that led to 9/11 were a result of the fact that we did not adequately infiltrate al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations. Simply adding more bureaucracy and red tape is not going to fix this.
Now maybe I'm just being overly skeptical, and maybe centralizing intelligence will work. I just happen to believe that having all the intelligence brought in by the assorted agencies going through a one man filter isn't all that great of an idea. Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard, argued quite persuasively that having the agencies compete for saliency is the best model. That way, intelligence organizations have incentive to seek the most accurate, valuable intelligence, lest they lose the trust and the ear of the president. As is the case with just about everything, competition is the best method of attaining optimum quality.
Simply put, if we want to insure a sound intelligence gathering apparatus in America, than the best road to go down is bringing about more spies and less bureaucracy.
Monday, February 14, 2005
A Marriage Amendment That Makes Sense
Let me start out by saying that I am personally opposed to gay marriage, that I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and that marriage has been under enough attack over the last couple decades without distorting it's time-old definition. Let me also state that I do support the idea of having a constitutional amendment, my only disagreement with most of my fellow Republicans is on how that amendment should be worded.
The biggest problem today is not gays getting married, it is the arbitrary actions of activists on the bench and renegade mayors. Trying to legislate their own beliefs on the rest of us, these courts and individuals are shamelessly disregarding the will of the people and subsequently the concept of democracy. Simply put, these entities are defying the rule of law.
The amendment proposed by the president and supported by congressional Republicans does not address this problem. Instead of directly outlawing gay marriage, a new amendment should address the problems I stated above. Here in America it is the will of the people, not the tyranny of a few, that dictates this country's laws. If future generations of Americans decide that gay marriage should be allowed than they should not have an amendment preventing that conviction from coming to fruition.
The will of the people should always carry the day, which is why we should pass an amendment that doesn't outlaw gay marriage, but rather states that gay marriage can only be legalized by a majority vote in that state's legislature or by state referendum. This amendment insures that current and future generation's views are respected, and that issues of this importance are taken away from unelected judges and runaway executives once and for all.
Our Republican leadership is right that we need a constitutional amendment, we should just have one that actually addresses the problem.
The biggest problem today is not gays getting married, it is the arbitrary actions of activists on the bench and renegade mayors. Trying to legislate their own beliefs on the rest of us, these courts and individuals are shamelessly disregarding the will of the people and subsequently the concept of democracy. Simply put, these entities are defying the rule of law.
The amendment proposed by the president and supported by congressional Republicans does not address this problem. Instead of directly outlawing gay marriage, a new amendment should address the problems I stated above. Here in America it is the will of the people, not the tyranny of a few, that dictates this country's laws. If future generations of Americans decide that gay marriage should be allowed than they should not have an amendment preventing that conviction from coming to fruition.
The will of the people should always carry the day, which is why we should pass an amendment that doesn't outlaw gay marriage, but rather states that gay marriage can only be legalized by a majority vote in that state's legislature or by state referendum. This amendment insures that current and future generation's views are respected, and that issues of this importance are taken away from unelected judges and runaway executives once and for all.
Our Republican leadership is right that we need a constitutional amendment, we should just have one that actually addresses the problem.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
The Rove Mystique
One of the more amusing topics I have heard discussed over the last few months is the role of Karl Rove in the president's reelection victory. Many on the paranoid left are convinced that he is the one that is formulating policy and making decisions, acting simply as the puppeteer to the president (though I thought this was supposed to be Dick Cheney?). This is hilarious, and it goes to prove just how warped so many on the left are today.
Make no mistake about it, Karl Rove is a very influential man in the Bush White House, and his strategy in the president's reelection campaign was brillaint, but it was not Karl Rove that was responsible for the victory. Serving as Youth Chair in my home district's Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, I'll let you in on the true reason for the president's victory-- It was the millions of volunteers that worked tirelessly over the span of a year to see the president reelected. From the minute I was asked to join the campaign I was astounded at the level of devotion and selflessness that so many of my fellow volunteers displayed. These volunteers were motivated by their support of the president, who we all believed was a couragous, optimistic leader.
It is for this reason that the president was successful. While the Democrats had paid operatives going into neighborhoods they had never been in nor would ever be again, we had volunteers talking to their friends and neighbors. Not only that, Bush volunteers were motivated by support and devotion, while those on the other side were motivated by hate. The reelection of George W. Bush proves once and for all that a campaign based on hope and optimism will always defeat one that is based on hate and cynicism.
For as important as Karl Rove was to the president's victory, I firmly believe that the balance of that credit goes to those who dropped everything to serve in a cause that we all believed was worthy. And to our delight, that belief was confirmed by the voters on November 2, 2004.
Make no mistake about it, Karl Rove is a very influential man in the Bush White House, and his strategy in the president's reelection campaign was brillaint, but it was not Karl Rove that was responsible for the victory. Serving as Youth Chair in my home district's Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, I'll let you in on the true reason for the president's victory-- It was the millions of volunteers that worked tirelessly over the span of a year to see the president reelected. From the minute I was asked to join the campaign I was astounded at the level of devotion and selflessness that so many of my fellow volunteers displayed. These volunteers were motivated by their support of the president, who we all believed was a couragous, optimistic leader.
It is for this reason that the president was successful. While the Democrats had paid operatives going into neighborhoods they had never been in nor would ever be again, we had volunteers talking to their friends and neighbors. Not only that, Bush volunteers were motivated by support and devotion, while those on the other side were motivated by hate. The reelection of George W. Bush proves once and for all that a campaign based on hope and optimism will always defeat one that is based on hate and cynicism.
For as important as Karl Rove was to the president's victory, I firmly believe that the balance of that credit goes to those who dropped everything to serve in a cause that we all believed was worthy. And to our delight, that belief was confirmed by the voters on November 2, 2004.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Continuing In The Legacy Of Lincoln
We as Republicans have always taken pride in calling ourselves "the party of Lincoln", for as America's first Republican president, and inarguably it's greatest, Abraham Lincoln has left us a legacy that every Republican can be proud of. Not only did he guide this nation through it's most trying period, he did so by making it his mission, and the mission of his country that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth".
Lincoln correctly believed that America was the only hope for democracy throughout the rest of the world, for if America had been cut in two during the Civil War the cause of freedom would have been destroyed. It is this belief that has fueled the presidencies of two other great Republicans, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Building upon Lincoln's legacy, both sought to spread freedom in areas of the world where it had never existed. If it had not been for the leadership of these two men and the United States of America, much of Eastern-Europe would still be in Soviet control and fifty million in the Middle East would still live in tyranny.
If we as Republicans are to remain as "the party of Lincoln", than we must always follow in his legacy of fighting for human liberty. Lincoln met more than his share of adversity, but this never deterred him from seeing the cause through to victory. It is this courage and leadership that is behind the greatness of Reagan and Bush. Freedom isn't free, and it never comes easy, but the Republican Party and the United States of America must always strive to insure that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth". Spreading freedom elsewhere is the only way to insure that it is preserved every where, and if Lincoln were around today he would tell you that.
Lincoln correctly believed that America was the only hope for democracy throughout the rest of the world, for if America had been cut in two during the Civil War the cause of freedom would have been destroyed. It is this belief that has fueled the presidencies of two other great Republicans, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Building upon Lincoln's legacy, both sought to spread freedom in areas of the world where it had never existed. If it had not been for the leadership of these two men and the United States of America, much of Eastern-Europe would still be in Soviet control and fifty million in the Middle East would still live in tyranny.
If we as Republicans are to remain as "the party of Lincoln", than we must always follow in his legacy of fighting for human liberty. Lincoln met more than his share of adversity, but this never deterred him from seeing the cause through to victory. It is this courage and leadership that is behind the greatness of Reagan and Bush. Freedom isn't free, and it never comes easy, but the Republican Party and the United States of America must always strive to insure that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth". Spreading freedom elsewhere is the only way to insure that it is preserved every where, and if Lincoln were around today he would tell you that.
Friday, February 11, 2005
It's Dean
Defying both rational thinking and reason, the Democrats will officially elect Howard Dean as chairman of the DNC tomorrow. While he has been the front-runner from the start, there has always been a part of me that assumed our friends on the left would choose someone a bit more practical and suitable than Dean. After all, they came to their senses during the Iowa caucuses a little over a year ago, so who was to believe they wouldn't again? I guess it was simply foolish of me to believe that the across the board defeats in 2004 would serve as a wake up call within that once proud party. Instead it has driven them further into oblivion, as the party's rank and file seem more and more desperate to confront Republicans instead of work with them.
What the Democrats should be doing is taking a long look in the mirror and pondering why they have lost the last three elections. Their choice of Dean shows that they haven't learned their lesson yet, that they believe their problem is how they market their message to Americans, not the message itself. Denying this is denying reality, for Democrats simply do not have any message or vision that resonates with the majority of Americans. Selecting a man to lead the party who says that he hates Republicans and every thing they stand for is not going to alleviate this problem.
The Democrats have to move away from their northeastern liberalism, and this won't happen by having a northeastern liberal leading the party. Howard Dean is simply the wrong man at the wrong time, and his leadership will turn more voters off than it will on. As someone who believes that two strong political parties are best for America, I would advise my Democratic friends to turn away from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", and move back towards the center. With a war to win and reform necessary here at home, Howard Dean should have no place leading the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
What the Democrats should be doing is taking a long look in the mirror and pondering why they have lost the last three elections. Their choice of Dean shows that they haven't learned their lesson yet, that they believe their problem is how they market their message to Americans, not the message itself. Denying this is denying reality, for Democrats simply do not have any message or vision that resonates with the majority of Americans. Selecting a man to lead the party who says that he hates Republicans and every thing they stand for is not going to alleviate this problem.
The Democrats have to move away from their northeastern liberalism, and this won't happen by having a northeastern liberal leading the party. Howard Dean is simply the wrong man at the wrong time, and his leadership will turn more voters off than it will on. As someone who believes that two strong political parties are best for America, I would advise my Democratic friends to turn away from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", and move back towards the center. With a war to win and reform necessary here at home, Howard Dean should have no place leading the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Giuliani In '08?
I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN today and they had a report on the uphill struggle Rudy Giuliani faces in securing the GOP nomination in '08. Though it's true that Giuliani's positions on Gay Marriage, Abortion, and gun control starkly differ with most Republicans, he still leads in every poll I've seen in who Republicans want to see as their next nominee. '08 is still a long ways off however, and it remains to be seen whether Republicans will feel as enthusiastic about him after they scrutinize his positions a bit more.
The question really is is what Rudy Giuliani will Republicans be thinking of when they step into the ballot box or their local caucus. Will they think of the social liberal who stayed with two gay friends of his during he and his wife's separation, or will they think of the strong leader who led New York City out of the ashes following 9/11 and who entranced them at the '04 convention? I have some reasons to suspect it might be the latter. During the report today, a New York columnist relayed a conversation he had had with a Texas Republican who supported Giuliani. When the columnist told the man of Giuliani's social positions, he simply shrugged and replied, "So?"
I myself like and am intrigued by Giuliani. Though I certainly disagree with his social positions, he has shown great leadership and determination in defeating terror. His defense and efforts on the part of the president throughout the most recent campaign were very impressive, and in my mind he dispelled any notions that he is not a true Republican. The Republican Party is the party of the big tent, and though Republicans may disagree with each other here and there, the one pole that holds up the tent and unites us all is our strength and resolve in fighting terrorism.
Though I am by no means endorsing Mr. Giuliani, I am simply stating that just because he does not hold the same positions as most Republicans should not disqualify him from deserving consideration for our party's nomination. If we as Republicans become infatuated with ideological purity than we commit ourselves down the same road of defeat the Democrats have taken. When push comes to shove we Republicans must look for a presidential nominee who demonstrates both leadership and resolve, for it is those traits that make a great president.
The question really is is what Rudy Giuliani will Republicans be thinking of when they step into the ballot box or their local caucus. Will they think of the social liberal who stayed with two gay friends of his during he and his wife's separation, or will they think of the strong leader who led New York City out of the ashes following 9/11 and who entranced them at the '04 convention? I have some reasons to suspect it might be the latter. During the report today, a New York columnist relayed a conversation he had had with a Texas Republican who supported Giuliani. When the columnist told the man of Giuliani's social positions, he simply shrugged and replied, "So?"
I myself like and am intrigued by Giuliani. Though I certainly disagree with his social positions, he has shown great leadership and determination in defeating terror. His defense and efforts on the part of the president throughout the most recent campaign were very impressive, and in my mind he dispelled any notions that he is not a true Republican. The Republican Party is the party of the big tent, and though Republicans may disagree with each other here and there, the one pole that holds up the tent and unites us all is our strength and resolve in fighting terrorism.
Though I am by no means endorsing Mr. Giuliani, I am simply stating that just because he does not hold the same positions as most Republicans should not disqualify him from deserving consideration for our party's nomination. If we as Republicans become infatuated with ideological purity than we commit ourselves down the same road of defeat the Democrats have taken. When push comes to shove we Republicans must look for a presidential nominee who demonstrates both leadership and resolve, for it is those traits that make a great president.
Monday, February 07, 2005
What A Difference A Couple Weeks Makes
Only a couple of weeks ago I commented on the prevailing sense of doubt directed towards Iraq. At that time a majority of Americans believed that both going into Iraq was not worth it and that it was unlikely a stable democracy could be fostered there. Yet only a little over a week removed from the Iraqi elections American opinion has taken a dramatic turn. According to the latest Gallup numbers, Americans are now very bullish on Iraq and it's prospects for democracy. For example:
- 55% now say going into Iraq was the right thing to do, up from 47% last month.
- 53% now say things are going well in Iraq, up from 40% last month.
- 64% now say it is likely that Iraq will become a stable democracy.
It's amazing what effect people exercising their long-deprived right to vote among mortar fire and suicide bombers will have on a dubious foreign country. Though the irrefutable success of the Iraqi elections was no surprise to me, the president, or most Republicans, it has gone a long way in alleviating some of the doubts that had existed in this country.
Some other interesting tidbits from the poll are:
- Republicans receive a 56% approval rating, while Democrats only receive 46%.
- 55% now think the president's policies will lead the country in the right direction.
Though the numbers regarding Iraq are important, the most important portions of the poll are those two listed above. President Bush's vision and policies were proven right in Iraq, and will continue to be, which undoubtedly leads the public to be receptive to his other policies and proposals. The Democrats' approval is so low because their doom and gloom vision of Iraq was wrong, and all Americans see now is a party in disarray with no vision for the country.
If Republicans want to keep their approval high they must continue to push their vision, bringing about reform that will prepare America for the challenges of the 21st century. In short, stay the course, Americans are with us.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Happy Birthday President Reagan!
With the Super Bowl being today President Reagan's birthday will unfortunately receive little attention. But as we look back on the life of our 40th president we may all marvel at his epic greatness. At a time when America was getting pushed around in the world and was feeling down about itself at home, President Reagan came to the rescue.
Instead of trying to appease the Soviet Union, he sought to bring it down. Instead of following the failed liberal policies of the past, he shrunk the size of government and gave people back more of their money. And instead of standing idle while Americans continued to doubt themselves, he taught them to believe again.
President Reagan was one of those rare leaders that not only had convictions, but had the courage to act on those convictions. His love and belief in the power of freedom is truly inspirational, and it is because of Ronald Reagan that I am a Republican.
As he looks down upon us today I am confident that he is smiling upon us, for it is Reagan's legacy that is present in so much of our nation's actions today. As we continue the fight to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, while trying preserve it here at home, it is important that we keep his words in mind:
Instead of trying to appease the Soviet Union, he sought to bring it down. Instead of following the failed liberal policies of the past, he shrunk the size of government and gave people back more of their money. And instead of standing idle while Americans continued to doubt themselves, he taught them to believe again.
President Reagan was one of those rare leaders that not only had convictions, but had the courage to act on those convictions. His love and belief in the power of freedom is truly inspirational, and it is because of Ronald Reagan that I am a Republican.
As he looks down upon us today I am confident that he is smiling upon us, for it is Reagan's legacy that is present in so much of our nation's actions today. As we continue the fight to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, while trying preserve it here at home, it is important that we keep his words in mind:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream, it must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Saturday, February 05, 2005
But What About The Senate?
President Bush has seemed to alleviate some of the doubts about Social Security Reform among Republican House members following his visit to the congressional Republican retreat in West Virginia last weekend. According to GOP whip Roy Blunt, many Republicans are excited about Personal Savings Accounts, which as he correctly describes it, will create millions of personal "lockboxes" that the government can't touch, instead of one lockbox in which the government can spend wherever and whenever it wants. This will force the government to live more within it's means, allowing individual's to spend and invest their money instead of Uncle Sam.
With the large GOP majority, I don't really expect there to be a problem passing Social Security Reform in the House. The Senate on the other hand, is a completely different story. Obstructionist Democrats seem hell-bent on preventing any progress from being made on Social Security, and the GOP still does not have enough of a majority to remove the threat of a filibuster. If the president seriously wants to see a reform bill passed, which he does, than he is going to have to personally invest large amounts of time and effort in persuading certain Senators to be brave and come along. There are several Democrats from red states that have expressed a willingness to consider a reform package, and it's important that they all are kept in the loop by the White House. The president will also have to spend some time cajoling some of the more liberal Republicans, i.e. Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins, to stick with him.
Though the House should not be taken for granted, the main obstacle in passing Social Security Reform is going to be the Senate. It is going to take a lot of hard work and maybe even some arm twisting to get it passed, but at the end of the day I believe the spending of political capitol on the part of the president will get his sensible reforms passed. If Democrats do succeed in obstructing good legislation, which is all they seem capable of, than they will face further retribution from the voters in '06.
With the large GOP majority, I don't really expect there to be a problem passing Social Security Reform in the House. The Senate on the other hand, is a completely different story. Obstructionist Democrats seem hell-bent on preventing any progress from being made on Social Security, and the GOP still does not have enough of a majority to remove the threat of a filibuster. If the president seriously wants to see a reform bill passed, which he does, than he is going to have to personally invest large amounts of time and effort in persuading certain Senators to be brave and come along. There are several Democrats from red states that have expressed a willingness to consider a reform package, and it's important that they all are kept in the loop by the White House. The president will also have to spend some time cajoling some of the more liberal Republicans, i.e. Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins, to stick with him.
Though the House should not be taken for granted, the main obstacle in passing Social Security Reform is going to be the Senate. It is going to take a lot of hard work and maybe even some arm twisting to get it passed, but at the end of the day I believe the spending of political capitol on the part of the president will get his sensible reforms passed. If Democrats do succeed in obstructing good legislation, which is all they seem capable of, than they will face further retribution from the voters in '06.
Friday, February 04, 2005
The Road To Realignment
With the president's decisive victory in November, as well as nearly across the board gains by the GOP, there is little doubt a great realignment has taken place in this country. Whereas American politics used to be dominated by New Deal and Great Society Democrats, Republicans have slowly but surely gained the upper hand. It has been a long road to get to this point, with, in my view, three main milestones marking the journey.
1.) The Reagan Election in 1980: Reagan's election marked the first major backlash against the liberal policies that had dominated for so long. Americans were tired of Jimmy Carter's pacifism, which led to the U.S. getting pushed around overseas. They were tired of the high taxes and stagnant economy. They were tired of the troubling social trends, with traditional values being attacked by the liberal establishment. And most importantly, they were tired of feeling down about themselves. Jimmy Carter was right in that there was a great "malaise" in this country, what he didn't admit was that it was his liberal policies that were causing it.
1.) The Reagan Election in 1980: Reagan's election marked the first major backlash against the liberal policies that had dominated for so long. Americans were tired of Jimmy Carter's pacifism, which led to the U.S. getting pushed around overseas. They were tired of the high taxes and stagnant economy. They were tired of the troubling social trends, with traditional values being attacked by the liberal establishment. And most importantly, they were tired of feeling down about themselves. Jimmy Carter was right in that there was a great "malaise" in this country, what he didn't admit was that it was his liberal policies that were causing it.
Fortunately, Ronald Reagan was there to come to the rescue, storming onto the scene with his youthful optimism and belief in the greatness of America and the power of the individual. No longer did America retreat from challenges abroad, instead confronting those forces who represented evil in the world. No longer did government ride the backs of it's people, instead giving them back more of their own hard-earned money. And no longer were Americans forced into a great malaise, instead being allowed to believe in themselves again, which Reagan cited as his greatest accomplishment.
2.) The Republican Revolution of 1994: At that point Democrats had been in control of the House for over forty years and the Senate for around fifteen. To finally end the Democrats' rein of darkness, Newt Gingrich crafted the "Contract with America", which pledged to accomplish such things as spending restraint, elimination of unfunded mandates, welfare reform, etc. The overwhelming success of Gingrich's contract signified the prevailing conservative mood within the country. Though some might point out Clinton's reelection in '96 to disprove that, the fact remains that Clinton's major accomplishments were all Reagan platforms; welfare reform, NAFTA, and a balanced budget. Clinton was only successful because he ran as a moderate to conservative Democrat.
It also deserves mentioning that though Clinton won twice, he never won an actual majority, and if it hadn't been for Perot, he would have never won in the first place.
3.) Bush Reelection of 2004: Not only did the president win with the first majority since his father in '88, he was also the first president to win reelection while increasing his party's majority in congress since FDR. While a large part of this is due to the Democrats' self-destructive traits, there is no denying that the country has taken a right turn.
President Bush was able to achieve this decisive victory because he adopted the major traits that had made Reagan successful; i.e. a muscular foreign policy that confronts evil and pushes for the spread of democracy, supply-side economics, and a belief in traditional family and social values.
The across the board victories in '04 served as the final confirmation of a GOP realignment that had been in the works for over twenty years. The question now is whether the GOP can turn this into a decades long trend of Republican dominance, similar to the New Deal coalition that lasted for over forty years. How they perform in the next couple years will go a long ways in deciding this, for if they are able to accomplish the reforms they campaigned on, both at home and abroad, they can insure that the GOP will remain in power for years to come.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
The State Of The Union
The main theme in the president's address tonight was leaving a better America and world for our children. He outlined this approach by reforming Social Security so it is able to fulfill it's obligations to America's younger generations. Current seniors and retirees are in no danger of losing their benefits, but the program faces a big solvency problem in the not to distant future, and the best way to prevent this problem from becoming a problem is by addressing it now. As the president argued tonight, the best way to insure the longevity of Social Security is to give younger Americans the opportunity to invest some of their payroll money so they may procure a larger return upon retirement. If we do nothing, we will have to either raise taxes or dramatically cut benefits down the road. It might cost a lot to act now, but it will cost far more if we wait.
The president's second way to insure a better future for young Americans is by spreading democracy in the Middle East and throughout the world. By liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush secured greater American security for generations to come. He is not stopping there however, for tonight he called out Syria's practice of suppressing democracy and supporting terror, something he made clear must stop. He also pressured allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to allow greater political participation among their people as well as expressing solidarity with democrats in Iran.
The most memorable moment of the night will surely be the embrace between the Iraqi women's rights activist and the mother of a fallen marine in Iraq. The emotional hug was not only moving but it really emphasized the great price so many brave Americans have paid so that Iraqis may enjoy the same rights we Americans do. Watching the whole thing really cemented my conviction that we must see the situation in Iraq through to success, insuring that that mother will not have lost her son in vain.
Overall I believe the president did a very good job tonight. He laid out in basic terms the problems facing Social Security and what we must do to address them. He pointed out the fact that we need to reform many things within our country to better fit the demands of a new century. And finally, he emphasized the fact that the best way to achieving peace and winning the War on Terror is by promoting freedom and democracy, with the ultimate goal of "ending tyranny in our world." For when it comes down to it, there really is no other way to accomplish this.
The president's second way to insure a better future for young Americans is by spreading democracy in the Middle East and throughout the world. By liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush secured greater American security for generations to come. He is not stopping there however, for tonight he called out Syria's practice of suppressing democracy and supporting terror, something he made clear must stop. He also pressured allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to allow greater political participation among their people as well as expressing solidarity with democrats in Iran.
The most memorable moment of the night will surely be the embrace between the Iraqi women's rights activist and the mother of a fallen marine in Iraq. The emotional hug was not only moving but it really emphasized the great price so many brave Americans have paid so that Iraqis may enjoy the same rights we Americans do. Watching the whole thing really cemented my conviction that we must see the situation in Iraq through to success, insuring that that mother will not have lost her son in vain.
Overall I believe the president did a very good job tonight. He laid out in basic terms the problems facing Social Security and what we must do to address them. He pointed out the fact that we need to reform many things within our country to better fit the demands of a new century. And finally, he emphasized the fact that the best way to achieving peace and winning the War on Terror is by promoting freedom and democracy, with the ultimate goal of "ending tyranny in our world." For when it comes down to it, there really is no other way to accomplish this.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Lost In The Wilderness
The Democrats are in an interesting situation right now. After attacking the president over Iraq for well over a year, they put all their political capital on the possibility that things wouldn't go well there, that elections would fail and Americans would hold the president and Republicans responsible for committing the country to a quagmire. If things did fail in Iraq, than the president's domestic agenda would be doomed for failure, for minimal public support for the president would give little incentive for congress to sign on to his agenda. With low approval and a disenchanted public, the Democrats would than have had all the justification they needed to block the president's agenda.
However all of this blew up in the Democrats' faces when the Iraqi election went far better than the media establishment and punditry had predicted. Democrats now look foolish for all the doom and gloom rhetoric they engaged in, especially Ted Kennedy's ill-timed claim that Iraq is a "quagmire", delivered just days before the election. President Bush wasn't looking at Iraq through rose-colored glasses after all, and Democrats will now have to answer for the fact that their views and predictions of Iraq were completely wrong, not the president's or Republicans'.
The successful elections in Iraq have given the president momentum, and Democrats know it. Looking to take some of the wind out of the president's sails, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi spoke before the National Press Club yesterday, engaging in what they called a "prebuttal" to the president's State of the Union tomorrow.
Now, anytime a party feels they have to do a "prebuttal" to a State of the Union makes it pretty obvious that that party is not in great shape. With the party's numbers shrinking with each election, and a president whose actions were vindicated by events on the ground, the Democrats are in a tough spot. Somehow they are going to have to find some way to take the momentum away from the president, or else they are going to have a tough time going through with their trademark obstruction without further retribution from the voters.
How they're going to do this is anybodies guess, for they have no agenda of their own and all their predictions have proven false. President Bush and Congressional Republicans need to take this opportunity and aggressively push their legislative agenda, for the nation is going to be much more receptive to our views after the successful election. The Democrats are lost in the wilderness, and Republicans have a chance to bring about some much needed reform. I suggest they take advantage of it.
However all of this blew up in the Democrats' faces when the Iraqi election went far better than the media establishment and punditry had predicted. Democrats now look foolish for all the doom and gloom rhetoric they engaged in, especially Ted Kennedy's ill-timed claim that Iraq is a "quagmire", delivered just days before the election. President Bush wasn't looking at Iraq through rose-colored glasses after all, and Democrats will now have to answer for the fact that their views and predictions of Iraq were completely wrong, not the president's or Republicans'.
The successful elections in Iraq have given the president momentum, and Democrats know it. Looking to take some of the wind out of the president's sails, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi spoke before the National Press Club yesterday, engaging in what they called a "prebuttal" to the president's State of the Union tomorrow.
Now, anytime a party feels they have to do a "prebuttal" to a State of the Union makes it pretty obvious that that party is not in great shape. With the party's numbers shrinking with each election, and a president whose actions were vindicated by events on the ground, the Democrats are in a tough spot. Somehow they are going to have to find some way to take the momentum away from the president, or else they are going to have a tough time going through with their trademark obstruction without further retribution from the voters.
How they're going to do this is anybodies guess, for they have no agenda of their own and all their predictions have proven false. President Bush and Congressional Republicans need to take this opportunity and aggressively push their legislative agenda, for the nation is going to be much more receptive to our views after the successful election. The Democrats are lost in the wilderness, and Republicans have a chance to bring about some much needed reform. I suggest they take advantage of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)