The performance of the nation's judiciary over the last couple of years has been, shall we say, poor. Not only have too many courts legislated from the bench by introducing gay marriage via judicial fiat, but the Supreme Court recently ruled that capitol punishment for minors is all of the sudden unconstitutional due to "evolving standards of decency" and the fact that Europe also outlaws it (how the laws of Europe have any relevance on the U.S. Constitution, which the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret, is beyond me). This frustration has only been compounded by the unprecedented filibusters of a handful of President Bush's judicial nominations in the Senate. Such obstructionism has prevented the ascension of judges to the bench who will interpret the law as it is, not twist it to how they would like it to be.
As time has passed and none of the above has been resolved, conservatives have grown increasingly more frustrated, and they have every right to be. But some leading conservatives have gone too far, crossing the line of frustration into vengeful demagoguery. House Majority Leader Delay for example, has said that we should consider redefining the term "good behavior" for judges laid out in the constitution. Changing this definition into some ideological context would be a terrible mistake, and it would jeopardize the independent judiciary and separation of powers that have served this country so well since it's birth.
Furthermore, the head of the Family Research Council recently stated that the filibustering of the president's judicial nominees is an attack on religion. The Democrats' filibustering is a sleazy, partisan tactic for sure, but it is by no means an attack on religion. Democrats have lost control of virtually every elected body in the country, and the judiciary stands as the last bastion in which they can change the law in this nation. Demagoging the issue by saying they are attacking religion is absurd and out of line.
And finally, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas has insinuated that the recent spate of in-court violence has something to do with the nature of the rulings the judiciary has been handing down. To suggest something such as this is preposterous, and it rivals only Howard Dean's numerous gaffes in it's ignorance. While I'm sure Sen. Cornyn didn't really mean what he was insinuating, statements such as these only poison the atmosphere further.
Clearly something has to be done about the runaway judiciary, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Trying to destroy the judiciary's independence or insinuating that violence within the courts is related to their decisions is the absolute wrong way to go about this. Conservatives who are stepping out of line need to chill out and tackle this problem rationally. What we should be doing is making our case before the American people that we need to promote constructionist judges who exercise judicial restraint and leave the lawmaking to the people and their elected representatives. Flying off the cuff and speaking in hyperbole will only diminish our ability to do so.
UPDATE (5/1/05 5:12 P.M.): Charles Krauthammer weighs in.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The Better Deal
To be blunt the White House has done a terrible job so far of selling Personal Savings Accounts. The president's attempts at persuasion have been uninspiring and his constant assertion that he is "open to all good ideas" has prevented him and Republicans from taking control of the issue. It comes to no surprise that support for the president's proposals have been stagnant in the polls. The lack of public support has scared off a few weak-kneed Republicans and seriously put into question whether the president and Republican leadership on the hill will be able to get anything done.
During his prime-time press conference tonight however, the president gave the best defense of PSAs that I have heard him give so far. Instead of focusing on the usual boring details that he has been emphasizing until now, he stressed that the current Social Security system is unfair, and he rightly asked why the wealthy should be the only ones to own their own assets. He stressed that it should be every American's right to own their own assets and be able to create a nest egg that they will be able to pass unto their children and grandchildren. He then pointed out how under the current system the rate of return is minimal and if you die at an early age all the money you have paid into the system simply disappears.
But than the president made the remark of the night, and found himself the standard by which he should sell PSAs to the American public from this point forward. He summed up the whole debate by saying that today's system is unfair and that PSAs are simply a "better deal". Whenever he makes a speech in support of PSAs now that should be how he describes them, as a better deal. Just as Franklin Roosevelt's initiatives were called "The New Deal", the plan to not only create PSAs, but also to reform the tax code, deliver tort reform, etc. should be part of George W. Bush's "Better Deal".
By using the ideals he laid out in that one answer tonight as the centerpiece of his salesman job to the American people, all under the title of "The Better Deal", the president can finally move the ball on reforming Social Security permanently and creating PSAs, which will give those with the least wealth among us to own assets and create a better future for they and their posterity that the current system doesn't provide for. If Democrats really claim that they are looking out for the underprivileged than this is their time to prove it. If the president and the White House do their job in ramping up support for PSAs, than the party of obstruction will no longer be able to simply ground themselves in concrete and block the president's initiatives.
During his prime-time press conference tonight however, the president gave the best defense of PSAs that I have heard him give so far. Instead of focusing on the usual boring details that he has been emphasizing until now, he stressed that the current Social Security system is unfair, and he rightly asked why the wealthy should be the only ones to own their own assets. He stressed that it should be every American's right to own their own assets and be able to create a nest egg that they will be able to pass unto their children and grandchildren. He then pointed out how under the current system the rate of return is minimal and if you die at an early age all the money you have paid into the system simply disappears.
But than the president made the remark of the night, and found himself the standard by which he should sell PSAs to the American public from this point forward. He summed up the whole debate by saying that today's system is unfair and that PSAs are simply a "better deal". Whenever he makes a speech in support of PSAs now that should be how he describes them, as a better deal. Just as Franklin Roosevelt's initiatives were called "The New Deal", the plan to not only create PSAs, but also to reform the tax code, deliver tort reform, etc. should be part of George W. Bush's "Better Deal".
By using the ideals he laid out in that one answer tonight as the centerpiece of his salesman job to the American people, all under the title of "The Better Deal", the president can finally move the ball on reforming Social Security permanently and creating PSAs, which will give those with the least wealth among us to own assets and create a better future for they and their posterity that the current system doesn't provide for. If Democrats really claim that they are looking out for the underprivileged than this is their time to prove it. If the president and the White House do their job in ramping up support for PSAs, than the party of obstruction will no longer be able to simply ground themselves in concrete and block the president's initiatives.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
'08 Presidential Race
Rasmussen released some numbers on two hypothetical match-ups for the '08 presidential race today, one pitting Arizona Senator John McCain against New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the other a matchup between former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Clinton. In the McCain-Clinton matchup McCain tops Clinton 45-38%, while in the Giuliani-Clinton face off Giuliani leads by the statistically insignificant margin of 42-40%. These are not the numbers from this poll that strike me however, for at this early juncture I could really care less what the horse-race numbers say.
The most striking numbers from this poll were the favorable-unfavorable numbers of the two Republican candidates. While 68% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Giuliani, just 51% do so of Sen. McCain. Today's Republican party is fairly conservative, and the fact that they approve of a social liberal over a conservative by such a wide margin is truly astounding. While I don't expect Giuliani's high favorability to remain this high should he officially jump into the race, at which point the scrutiny on his social liberalness will skyrocket, McCain's low favorability is very troubling to someone trying to gain the party's nomination.
McCain's maverick tendencies and his perceived lack of support for the president up until last year's presidential campaign have obviously left many of the party's rank and file disenchanted. I have always considered his chance of getting the party's '08 nomination a long shot, but he will never get close to receiving it if he doesn't improve his favorability among the party. Should he get the nomination he will be a very formidable general election candidate, and my guess is that he would comfortably defeat any Democrat he may run against, Sen. Clinton included. But to get to the general election he must first win the nomination, and there isn't a chance he will accomplish this if only half of the party views him in a favorable light.
These numbers put in bold letters the need for Sen. McCain to get out and mend some fences within the party. He may be the left's favorite Republican, but he has a long ways to go before he becomes the Republican Party's favorite Republican.
The most striking numbers from this poll were the favorable-unfavorable numbers of the two Republican candidates. While 68% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Giuliani, just 51% do so of Sen. McCain. Today's Republican party is fairly conservative, and the fact that they approve of a social liberal over a conservative by such a wide margin is truly astounding. While I don't expect Giuliani's high favorability to remain this high should he officially jump into the race, at which point the scrutiny on his social liberalness will skyrocket, McCain's low favorability is very troubling to someone trying to gain the party's nomination.
McCain's maverick tendencies and his perceived lack of support for the president up until last year's presidential campaign have obviously left many of the party's rank and file disenchanted. I have always considered his chance of getting the party's '08 nomination a long shot, but he will never get close to receiving it if he doesn't improve his favorability among the party. Should he get the nomination he will be a very formidable general election candidate, and my guess is that he would comfortably defeat any Democrat he may run against, Sen. Clinton included. But to get to the general election he must first win the nomination, and there isn't a chance he will accomplish this if only half of the party views him in a favorable light.
These numbers put in bold letters the need for Sen. McCain to get out and mend some fences within the party. He may be the left's favorite Republican, but he has a long ways to go before he becomes the Republican Party's favorite Republican.
It's Wictory Wednesday!
It's Wictory Wednesday today, the first one The Young Conservative will be participating in. This week we are contacting our senators to encourage them to act to end the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees. Make sure your senators know that you do not support the Democrat's obstructionism and that it should end immediately. You can contact your senators here.
Also, here is today's post from Polipundit and the Wictory Wednesday Blogroll can be found on the right hand side of this site.
Also, here is today's post from Polipundit and the Wictory Wednesday Blogroll can be found on the right hand side of this site.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
You Can't Let This One Go
Tonight I read a Boondocks comic that sarcastically commented, "We are thankful that our leader isn't the spoiled son of a powerful politician from a wealthy oil family who is supported by religious fundamentalists, operates through clandestine organizations, has no respect for the democratic electoral process, bombs innocents, and uses war to deny people their civil liberties."
After seeing this, I couldn't help but respond to the idiot liberal that created Boondocks. I'm sure Geoff is happy that I am finally posting on here, but at the same time somewhat regretting it, because I am an Ann Coulter fan and possibly a little more abrasive on certain issues. Take this post as an introduction to me. Luckily this comic got BOTH Geoff and I riled up, producing this response:
- Although our leader may be the spoiled son of a politician, he worked for a great education at Yale just like any other student did. If your family had made tons of money off of oil, you wouldn't mind benefiting from it as well. In fact, you would milk it for all its worth. Think of key figures like Ted Kennedy and John Rockefeller. Now THEY came from spoiled backgrounds.
- In my opinion there is nothing wrong with a religious fundamentalist. Following the Bible and applying it to our country is exactly what our Christian forefathers, the writers of the Constitution, wanted. In America, we acknowledge that God gives us the moral clarity and the ability to recognize and confront evil, unlike other secular regions of the world, such as Europe, which condemn Israel while it’s leaders bow before the casket of Yasser Arafat.
- What secret organization is Bush involved in?
- The democratic electoral process elected President Bush twice. If he didn't respect it, he wouldn't have been re-elected.
- Until you drive an electric car and power your house from solar panels, don't talk to me about bombing innocents. Why can't you recognize the fact that more Iraqis died in Hussein's torture chambers than are dying in Iraq right now? Suicide bombs and terrorists are taking Iraqi lives, not President Bush.
- What civil liberties are being taken away from the war? Our civil liberties aren't being taken away. If they were, do you think people could publish comics such as this? No drafts have been instituted. We haven't taken any liberties away from Iraq. We allowed them to retain their civil liberties under new leadership instead of the oppressive Saddam Hussein.
Monday, April 25, 2005
The Theocracy Myth
One of the most annoying complaints against President Bush and this country is the assertion that America is swift on the path to becoming a theocracy. This assertion isn't based in any rational thought or conclusive evidence, rather on the discomfort some have with the fact that America does not mirror her secular, European cousins. This minority doesn't like the recognition of God in the public square, and the fact that the president openly alludes to Providence in many of his speeches and public statements terrifies them for some unexplained reason. Despite their earnest assertions to the contrary, America in no way resembles a theocracy and will never get close to becoming one. The fact that Americans acknowledge the existence of a higher being is not something that should be alarming, but rather something that should be embraced.
A society that acknowledges the existence of a creator is a more caring society that treats it's neighbors with respect and dignity. They have moral standards and values that they live by and in turn are peaceful and decent. Those societies that tend to shun God from the public square tend to lose their moral clarity, and thus lose their ability to recognize and confront evil. Europe's hostility towards Israel and their warm embrace of Palestinian terrorism, summed up by French President Jacque Chirac bowing before Yasser Arafat's casket bear this out.
It is America's acknowledgement of God, and subsequently our moral clarity, that led us to liberate western Europe from Nazi domination, to confront the evil empire that was the Soviet Union, and to liberate fifty million oppressed souls in the Middle East. Without the moral clarity that an acknowledgment of God brings, the fight for liberty and human rights for millions around the world would be lost.
Furthermore, the recognition and acknowledgment of God does not constitute a theocracy. While we as Americans recognize God in our founding documents and on our currency, we in no way legislate the way our citizens must acknowledge God, or that they must acknowledge him at all. The fact that such a small but loud minority doesn't understand this suggests not that they fear being forced to worship in a way the government designates, but that they are insecure in their own beliefs, and therefore wish to prevent the expression by others of theirs.
A society that acknowledges the existence of a creator is a more caring society that treats it's neighbors with respect and dignity. They have moral standards and values that they live by and in turn are peaceful and decent. Those societies that tend to shun God from the public square tend to lose their moral clarity, and thus lose their ability to recognize and confront evil. Europe's hostility towards Israel and their warm embrace of Palestinian terrorism, summed up by French President Jacque Chirac bowing before Yasser Arafat's casket bear this out.
It is America's acknowledgement of God, and subsequently our moral clarity, that led us to liberate western Europe from Nazi domination, to confront the evil empire that was the Soviet Union, and to liberate fifty million oppressed souls in the Middle East. Without the moral clarity that an acknowledgment of God brings, the fight for liberty and human rights for millions around the world would be lost.
Furthermore, the recognition and acknowledgment of God does not constitute a theocracy. While we as Americans recognize God in our founding documents and on our currency, we in no way legislate the way our citizens must acknowledge God, or that they must acknowledge him at all. The fact that such a small but loud minority doesn't understand this suggests not that they fear being forced to worship in a way the government designates, but that they are insecure in their own beliefs, and therefore wish to prevent the expression by others of theirs.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Confirm Bolton
The recent defection of Republican senator George Voinovich of Ohio has put in serious jeopardy the confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Though Voinovich is the only Republican to openly declare his opposition to Mr. Bolton, Republican senators Chaffee, Hagel, and Murkowski on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have expressed concern towards him as well. The concern from Republicans and the opposition of Democrats towards Bolton is based solely in his abrasive personality. Bolton has been known to be hostile towards those who disagree with him and he has never been known to have any apologies about his actions or viewpoints.
Originally the objection to Bolton was his hostility towards the UN, but since his views coincide with a large majority of the American peoples' perception of the UN Democrats have largely abandoned this argument. Now they have had to make hay out of his clashes with subordinates and colleagues within the State Department. However the fact that he has had many a conflict with others inside the State Department is really no surprise. Throughout the president's first term Bolton was the only one in the department to support the president's foreign policy, especially in regards to the Middle East. The worst kept secret in Washington was that the State Department opposed the president's agenda to reshape the Middle East, so the fact that Bolton didn't always get along with the personnel there doesn't leaving me scratching my head.
If Bolton's nomination is thwarted, on the basis that he is a tough boss, than it will be a disappointment to everyone who wants to see legitimate reform within the UN. Bolton's history of hostility towards the UN emphasizes the fact that he knows what's wrong with the world body and he knows what needs to be fixed. It is because of this that he is the ideal choice to represent the United States there and to lead the reform efforts.
Just as Nixon was the only one who could go to China, Bolton is the only one who can be trusted to go to the UN.
Originally the objection to Bolton was his hostility towards the UN, but since his views coincide with a large majority of the American peoples' perception of the UN Democrats have largely abandoned this argument. Now they have had to make hay out of his clashes with subordinates and colleagues within the State Department. However the fact that he has had many a conflict with others inside the State Department is really no surprise. Throughout the president's first term Bolton was the only one in the department to support the president's foreign policy, especially in regards to the Middle East. The worst kept secret in Washington was that the State Department opposed the president's agenda to reshape the Middle East, so the fact that Bolton didn't always get along with the personnel there doesn't leaving me scratching my head.
If Bolton's nomination is thwarted, on the basis that he is a tough boss, than it will be a disappointment to everyone who wants to see legitimate reform within the UN. Bolton's history of hostility towards the UN emphasizes the fact that he knows what's wrong with the world body and he knows what needs to be fixed. It is because of this that he is the ideal choice to represent the United States there and to lead the reform efforts.
Just as Nixon was the only one who could go to China, Bolton is the only one who can be trusted to go to the UN.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Habemus Papam!
The selection of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as pope today signals a desire among the leadership within the Catholic church to stay the course. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was one of Pope John Paul II's most important intellectual advisors and has taken many of the same traditional, conservative stances regarding theology. He has been forceful in his support of traditional church teachings and in his opposition to gay marriage and women entering the priesthood. He has also come out and condemned the rise of relativism in society and has criticized some factions within the church for their drift away from traditional Catholicism.
The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is seventy-eight years old also emphasizes the fact that the church is not looking for a new direction but rather a man who will carry on the legacy of John Paul II for the time being. Benedict XVI's pontificate will obviously be much shorter than his predecessor's and it is obvious that he was not chosen to lead a new generation within the Catholic church. Benedict XVI will likely simply try to tend the legacy of his predecessor while the church worldwide tries to decide where it wants to go in the coming generation.
The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is seventy-eight years old also emphasizes the fact that the church is not looking for a new direction but rather a man who will carry on the legacy of John Paul II for the time being. Benedict XVI's pontificate will obviously be much shorter than his predecessor's and it is obvious that he was not chosen to lead a new generation within the Catholic church. Benedict XVI will likely simply try to tend the legacy of his predecessor while the church worldwide tries to decide where it wants to go in the coming generation.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Here A Tax, There A Tax, Everywhere A Tax
Once again the Washington State legislature has earned it's long-held reputation for being tax happy. The state Senate has enacted a measure that will suspend a popular initiative passed a couple of years ago that prohibits the legislature from passing any tax hikes without a two-thirds majority in both houses. This bill, expected to be signed by Gov. Gregoire tomorrow, paves the way for the legislature to pass a two year, $26 billion budget chock-full of tax hikes before the legislative session ends on the twenty-fourth of this month. For example, there will be a 5% tax on non-tribal minicasinos, a 60 cent hike on the cigarette tax this year and a 20 cent hike next year, a $1 dollar hike on the liquor tax, an extension of the sales tax to extended warranties for items such as appliances, and a hike on business taxes levied against canned meat processors. These are just the main ones, and the legislature has also considered levying other "sin taxes", such as a five percent tax on cans of pop.
To justify these measures, the Democratic majority has claimed that higher taxes are needed to keep the budget in balance. However the budget shortfall is not because taxes are too low, it is because spending is too high. A wise man once pointed out that a government program is the closest thing to eternal life we will see on this earth. By creating more and more programs within the state, programs which once inacted will always be there, we will continue to add to the imbalance between expenditures and revenue, which will mean more taxes in future budgets to cover that indiscrepancy, only worsening the cycle we've created for ourselves.
Democrats, including the governor have admitted that this cycle is unsustainable, yet instead of trying to get us out of it they only make things worse by increasing expenditures and taxes. If we in Washington don't start demanding more from our elected representatives than the tax burden is going to start breaking our backs. Sure a little hike on the cigarette tax here and on canned meat there doesn't seem like much, but it has gotten to the point where there is a tax here, a tax there, a tax everywhere.
The legislature is looking to come back for more in the next budget cycle as well. A provision in the bill I mentioned above has reworked the way the state's spending limit is determined, moving from the current formula based on a combination of the state's population and inflation to a new system that determines changes in the spending limit on growth in personal income. The House bill sets spending increases at 90% of the growth of income, while the Senate version sets it at 100%. Personal income is projected to grow by 11.5% over the next two years, while the current formula is only expected to grow by 7%. This 4.5% gap will allow the legislature to increase spending by a billion dollars in the next budget. Democrats, if they are still the majority than, will have to enact another series of tax hikes to balance an even larger budget.
All of this fiscal insanity has to stop sometime, and I hope that the voters of Washington State will elect a Republican legislature next year and a Republican governor in '08. Only than will we be able to end the vicious cycle of spending and taxing that has pervaded in this state for far too long.
To justify these measures, the Democratic majority has claimed that higher taxes are needed to keep the budget in balance. However the budget shortfall is not because taxes are too low, it is because spending is too high. A wise man once pointed out that a government program is the closest thing to eternal life we will see on this earth. By creating more and more programs within the state, programs which once inacted will always be there, we will continue to add to the imbalance between expenditures and revenue, which will mean more taxes in future budgets to cover that indiscrepancy, only worsening the cycle we've created for ourselves.
Democrats, including the governor have admitted that this cycle is unsustainable, yet instead of trying to get us out of it they only make things worse by increasing expenditures and taxes. If we in Washington don't start demanding more from our elected representatives than the tax burden is going to start breaking our backs. Sure a little hike on the cigarette tax here and on canned meat there doesn't seem like much, but it has gotten to the point where there is a tax here, a tax there, a tax everywhere.
The legislature is looking to come back for more in the next budget cycle as well. A provision in the bill I mentioned above has reworked the way the state's spending limit is determined, moving from the current formula based on a combination of the state's population and inflation to a new system that determines changes in the spending limit on growth in personal income. The House bill sets spending increases at 90% of the growth of income, while the Senate version sets it at 100%. Personal income is projected to grow by 11.5% over the next two years, while the current formula is only expected to grow by 7%. This 4.5% gap will allow the legislature to increase spending by a billion dollars in the next budget. Democrats, if they are still the majority than, will have to enact another series of tax hikes to balance an even larger budget.
All of this fiscal insanity has to stop sometime, and I hope that the voters of Washington State will elect a Republican legislature next year and a Republican governor in '08. Only than will we be able to end the vicious cycle of spending and taxing that has pervaded in this state for far too long.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Whose Politicizing The Terri Schiavo Case Again?
Following the death of Terri Schiavo we heard a lot of indignation from the Democratic Party and liberal establishment over the memo from a staffer within Sen. Mel Martinez's office that outlined how the GOP could profit politically from the whole ordeal. I agreed that the memo was inappropriate as well as incorrect, for the whole issue obviously backfired on any Republican hoping to score some political points. However it isn't only the Republicans who are looking to score political points from the tragic case of Terri Schiavo. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, the flowing fountain of gaffes himself, has now stated publicly that the Democrats will try to use the case of Terri Schiavo against the GOP in next year's midterms.
As Dean explained it, "This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?' "
So I guess it is absolutely abhorrent for Republicans to try and appeal to their base, yet it is fine for Democrats to try and score political points among theirs by taking advantage of a tragic situation. By Dean's comments it becomes obvious that the Democrats are more interested in exploiting Terri Schiavo to try and tear down Rep. Delay than trying to make an issue of end of life decisions. If Democrats were smart they wouldn't try and politicize this, as Republicans have learned the hard way. The American people aren't stupid, and they recognize a political ploy when they see one. Trying to use Terri Schiavo to get to Tom Delay will only hurt, not help their chances in '06 and '08.
As Dean explained it, "This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?' "
So I guess it is absolutely abhorrent for Republicans to try and appeal to their base, yet it is fine for Democrats to try and score political points among theirs by taking advantage of a tragic situation. By Dean's comments it becomes obvious that the Democrats are more interested in exploiting Terri Schiavo to try and tear down Rep. Delay than trying to make an issue of end of life decisions. If Democrats were smart they wouldn't try and politicize this, as Republicans have learned the hard way. The American people aren't stupid, and they recognize a political ploy when they see one. Trying to use Terri Schiavo to get to Tom Delay will only hurt, not help their chances in '06 and '08.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Striking A Balance
Much is said in politics over "wedge issues". During the last election a common topic among the political punditry was how much the issue of gay marriage would split the Democratic Party and aid the president. Poll after poll showed unified opposition to gay marriage among Republicans, with the Democrats split right down the middle over it. Following the election, many have argued in their reviews that handfuls of voters who might have previously voted Democrat supported the president because of the confidence they had in him to deal with the issue. Whether this assertion is valid or not is up for debate, but there is no denying that the issue of gay marriage did divide the Democratic Party in two.
For Republicans, our wedge issue is immigration. With the exception of a small segment of nativists on the far right, Republicans all believe that legal immigration is a cherished tradition and part of American society, and that it is one of the key reasons America is as successful and prosperous as it is today. What we disagree over is what to do in regards to illegal immigration.
I personally have struggled to take a stand on this issue. While on the one hand I strongly believe that we should never allow the law to respect those who do not respect our laws, I also realize that it is impractical to attempt to deport the roughly eleven million illegals that currently live in this country. As I've seen it, the best course of action is not flooding the borders with increased security, the American military, or vigilante groups; but rather to find a way to allow those here illegally to become citizens while at the same time keeping them from cutting in line in front of the millions of legal immigrants who do respect our laws.
Recently Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy have authored a proposal that will in many ways strike the balance I and many Republicans have been looking for. In the proposed bill illegal immigrants could apply for permanent residency if they have gone through six years of legal work, have paid a fine for crossing the border illegally, and agree to submit to a background check. The bill also contains a provision that will speed up the application process for residency to insure that illegals will not be able to cut in line in front of legals.
I like this proposal not only because it prevents this cutting in line, but also because it allows illegals to gain residency and subsequently citizenship while at the same time applying some punitive measures for not coming to this country the right way. The required background check will also insure that those we grant with residency are not a threat to our nation's security.
This bill addresses many, if not all of the concerns that the nation has with immigration, and when apprised of this plan seventy-seven percent of the public supports it. It acutely strikes a balance between our principles that those who break the rules should not be respected by the rules and the need to limit the free flow across our borders that is a threat to national security. In my view, this is a practical plan that members of both parties and the American people can get behind and support.
Hat Tip: Mort Kondracke
For Republicans, our wedge issue is immigration. With the exception of a small segment of nativists on the far right, Republicans all believe that legal immigration is a cherished tradition and part of American society, and that it is one of the key reasons America is as successful and prosperous as it is today. What we disagree over is what to do in regards to illegal immigration.
I personally have struggled to take a stand on this issue. While on the one hand I strongly believe that we should never allow the law to respect those who do not respect our laws, I also realize that it is impractical to attempt to deport the roughly eleven million illegals that currently live in this country. As I've seen it, the best course of action is not flooding the borders with increased security, the American military, or vigilante groups; but rather to find a way to allow those here illegally to become citizens while at the same time keeping them from cutting in line in front of the millions of legal immigrants who do respect our laws.
Recently Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy have authored a proposal that will in many ways strike the balance I and many Republicans have been looking for. In the proposed bill illegal immigrants could apply for permanent residency if they have gone through six years of legal work, have paid a fine for crossing the border illegally, and agree to submit to a background check. The bill also contains a provision that will speed up the application process for residency to insure that illegals will not be able to cut in line in front of legals.
I like this proposal not only because it prevents this cutting in line, but also because it allows illegals to gain residency and subsequently citizenship while at the same time applying some punitive measures for not coming to this country the right way. The required background check will also insure that those we grant with residency are not a threat to our nation's security.
This bill addresses many, if not all of the concerns that the nation has with immigration, and when apprised of this plan seventy-seven percent of the public supports it. It acutely strikes a balance between our principles that those who break the rules should not be respected by the rules and the need to limit the free flow across our borders that is a threat to national security. In my view, this is a practical plan that members of both parties and the American people can get behind and support.
Hat Tip: Mort Kondracke
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Assessing Our Presidents: George H.W. Bush
As President Reagan's vice president George Herbert Walker Bush was elected to not only tend to the Reagan agenda and legacy, but to further it as well. Instead it seemed like throughout his term he wanted to run from it. He said during the '88 campaign that he envisioned "a kinder, gentler America", which seemed to imply that the America that had spent the past eight years creating millions of new jobs and pushing for the Democratic rights of millions of others in Eastern Europe and Central and South America hadn't been. Instead of continuing to confront the Soviet Union and pushing for democracy, the Bush 41 Administration reverted back a "realist" foreign policy, which always seems to promote stability at the exclusion of democracy. Not only that, Bush 41 went back on his campaign pledge and broke a sacred rule for Republicans by raising taxes. With this aversion from the mandate the voters had given him, it is unsurprising that he won less than forty percent of the popular vote when he came up for reelection in '92.
The major thing that President Bush did do right was the Persian Gulf War, but even that was incomplete. Instead of heeding the advice of his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, the president decided against finishing the job and removing Saddam from power. Letting him remain as the butcher of Baghdad would go on to cause the U.S. and two subsequent presidents one very large, unending headache.
I have a hard time holding this against President Bush however, for all indications back then pointed to the Saddam regime collapsing from within.
Yet in my view Bush 41's foreign policy will not be remembered best by his leadership in the Persian Gulf War, but rather his infamous "chicken speech" to the Ukrainian people during a visit there. In that speech the president urged the Ukraine to remain within the Soviet Union at the exact time the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. While it is unsure what the president was trying to accomplish, the one thing it did do was alienate and anger Reagan Republicans back home. Asking the Ukraine to remain under the state that had oppressed them for decades was the equivalent of asking a slave to stay under his master, and it wasn't hard to predict that the freedom-starved Ukrainians would ignore his advice.
Bush 41's domestic policy, especially his tax policies, were another source of frustration for Republicans. President Reagan had secured the longest period of American growth in history by cutting taxes and shrinking government, yet for some unexplained reason the president ran away from these policies as well, instead acquiescing to the Democrats in congress and raising taxes. This move was just another in a long line of moves that had alienated the Reagan coalition that had given him such a large majority coming into office.
Make no mistake about it, George H.W. Bush is a good and decent man whose service to his country began in his tour of duty in WWII and ended with his term as president, and for all this he deserves the thanks and praise of everyone of his countrymen. But unfortunately his presidency was a squandered opportunity. Instead of continuing and expanding upon the Reagan agenda, he retreated from it. Whereas Reagan had come to office with a vision and direction, Bush 41 lacked either. President Reagan was a leader, President Bush was a manager. By the time the president came up for reelection in '92 conservatives were disenchanted beyond repair. His 70% approval among Republicans was a pittance compared to the 90% plus approval Reagan and his son had among Republicans at the time of their reelections. On election day man conservatives either voted for Perot or stayed home altogether.
As George Herbert Walker Bush learned the hard way, those who run from the Reagan agenda and legacy get run from office themselves.
The major thing that President Bush did do right was the Persian Gulf War, but even that was incomplete. Instead of heeding the advice of his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, the president decided against finishing the job and removing Saddam from power. Letting him remain as the butcher of Baghdad would go on to cause the U.S. and two subsequent presidents one very large, unending headache.
I have a hard time holding this against President Bush however, for all indications back then pointed to the Saddam regime collapsing from within.
Yet in my view Bush 41's foreign policy will not be remembered best by his leadership in the Persian Gulf War, but rather his infamous "chicken speech" to the Ukrainian people during a visit there. In that speech the president urged the Ukraine to remain within the Soviet Union at the exact time the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. While it is unsure what the president was trying to accomplish, the one thing it did do was alienate and anger Reagan Republicans back home. Asking the Ukraine to remain under the state that had oppressed them for decades was the equivalent of asking a slave to stay under his master, and it wasn't hard to predict that the freedom-starved Ukrainians would ignore his advice.
Bush 41's domestic policy, especially his tax policies, were another source of frustration for Republicans. President Reagan had secured the longest period of American growth in history by cutting taxes and shrinking government, yet for some unexplained reason the president ran away from these policies as well, instead acquiescing to the Democrats in congress and raising taxes. This move was just another in a long line of moves that had alienated the Reagan coalition that had given him such a large majority coming into office.
Make no mistake about it, George H.W. Bush is a good and decent man whose service to his country began in his tour of duty in WWII and ended with his term as president, and for all this he deserves the thanks and praise of everyone of his countrymen. But unfortunately his presidency was a squandered opportunity. Instead of continuing and expanding upon the Reagan agenda, he retreated from it. Whereas Reagan had come to office with a vision and direction, Bush 41 lacked either. President Reagan was a leader, President Bush was a manager. By the time the president came up for reelection in '92 conservatives were disenchanted beyond repair. His 70% approval among Republicans was a pittance compared to the 90% plus approval Reagan and his son had among Republicans at the time of their reelections. On election day man conservatives either voted for Perot or stayed home altogether.
As George Herbert Walker Bush learned the hard way, those who run from the Reagan agenda and legacy get run from office themselves.
Friday, April 08, 2005
The Republican Slump
It has been a rough month or so for Republicans in Washington. The president's job approval has now sunk below fifty percent and there seems to be little to no progress being made in persuading the American people to support Personal Savings Accounts. Not only that, but the lack of fiscal conservatism from Republicans in the Senate, the growing stink around House Majority Leader Tom Delay, and congress' mistake in stepping into the Terri Schiavo situation has put we Republicans on our collective heels. The Democrats aren't really ascending at our expense, but they have been successful so far in thwarting the GOP agenda.
The president's soft approval ratings, though nothing to panic about, are somewhat of a concern, especially considering the fact that his controversial foreign policy is resulting in historic democratic movements across the greater Middle East. There is a lot of good news at home as well, for jobless claims continue to sink, the unemployment rate is at historic lows, and the economy is growing at a more than healthy pace. The dark cloud over all this are soaring gas prices however, which are gaining more headlines and attention than all the other good news. The other factor plaguing the president is his administration's chronic communications problem. Polls have shown that public misconceptions about the president's Social Security plan are holding down support for it. Couple that with the president's highly unpopular move to allow the Federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter and it is no small wonder that he is not exceedingly popular right now.
The president and the White House do seem to go into these stretches from time to time, the last time being the period of April and May of last year when the president was getting pounded over Iraq and Abu Ghraib. To address this the communication effort within the White House needs to step it up and have the president once again giving a clear and coherent message to the American people. He needs to stop negotiating with himself and come out with a plan for Social Security and he needs to stop asserting that PSAs will do nothing to address the program's long term solvency, which they will. I'm beginning to believe that Karen Hughes should leave her State Department post and come back to the White House, where she belongs.
My biggest concern however is not with the White House but with congress. It's frustrating to see a growing Republican majority in the Senate yet no sincere effort to curb spending and rein in entitlements. The president sent to them a responsible budget which is the leanest such one in years, yet the GOP Senate rejected virtually all of his spending reductions and cuts. The GOP caucus in the Senate also seems to have no clear direction in how they are going to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees. I have stated before what they should do, and no matter what they do, they need to do something. There is likely to be a vacancy on the Supreme Court this spring and if Republicans don't think that Democrats will move to filibuster the president's appointments to the high court we are deceiving ourselves.
Whether this Republican slump carries over into the next elections in '06 and '08 is still up in the air, wholly dependent on what Republicans do now and in the coming months to get out of it. We need to trim both discretionary and entitlement spending, we need to come up with a plan for getting judges up or down votes, and we need a clear and unified plan for Social Security that the president and each member of congress can take to the American people. What I see now is a Republican Party that is floating without direction, and to correct this we need to regroup and reassert ourselves, sooner rather than later. It's time to accomplish what the American people elected us to accomplish, or they will find someone else to do it.
UPDATE (6:03 P.M. 4/11/05): Michael Barone, the most astute observer of American politics around, offers his insight on the current Republican slump.
The president's soft approval ratings, though nothing to panic about, are somewhat of a concern, especially considering the fact that his controversial foreign policy is resulting in historic democratic movements across the greater Middle East. There is a lot of good news at home as well, for jobless claims continue to sink, the unemployment rate is at historic lows, and the economy is growing at a more than healthy pace. The dark cloud over all this are soaring gas prices however, which are gaining more headlines and attention than all the other good news. The other factor plaguing the president is his administration's chronic communications problem. Polls have shown that public misconceptions about the president's Social Security plan are holding down support for it. Couple that with the president's highly unpopular move to allow the Federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter and it is no small wonder that he is not exceedingly popular right now.
The president and the White House do seem to go into these stretches from time to time, the last time being the period of April and May of last year when the president was getting pounded over Iraq and Abu Ghraib. To address this the communication effort within the White House needs to step it up and have the president once again giving a clear and coherent message to the American people. He needs to stop negotiating with himself and come out with a plan for Social Security and he needs to stop asserting that PSAs will do nothing to address the program's long term solvency, which they will. I'm beginning to believe that Karen Hughes should leave her State Department post and come back to the White House, where she belongs.
My biggest concern however is not with the White House but with congress. It's frustrating to see a growing Republican majority in the Senate yet no sincere effort to curb spending and rein in entitlements. The president sent to them a responsible budget which is the leanest such one in years, yet the GOP Senate rejected virtually all of his spending reductions and cuts. The GOP caucus in the Senate also seems to have no clear direction in how they are going to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees. I have stated before what they should do, and no matter what they do, they need to do something. There is likely to be a vacancy on the Supreme Court this spring and if Republicans don't think that Democrats will move to filibuster the president's appointments to the high court we are deceiving ourselves.
Whether this Republican slump carries over into the next elections in '06 and '08 is still up in the air, wholly dependent on what Republicans do now and in the coming months to get out of it. We need to trim both discretionary and entitlement spending, we need to come up with a plan for getting judges up or down votes, and we need a clear and unified plan for Social Security that the president and each member of congress can take to the American people. What I see now is a Republican Party that is floating without direction, and to correct this we need to regroup and reassert ourselves, sooner rather than later. It's time to accomplish what the American people elected us to accomplish, or they will find someone else to do it.
UPDATE (6:03 P.M. 4/11/05): Michael Barone, the most astute observer of American politics around, offers his insight on the current Republican slump.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Remembering Pope John Paul II
The outpouring of emotion and love shown by millions around the world towards Pope John Paul II, especially the millions who are waiting in line four hours on end to view the pontiff's body, has been truly astounding. World figures come and go just like everything and everyone in life, yet none has received the kind of love and attention in death as John Paul II has. Now of course, very few figures ever leave the same lasting effect on the world that the pope did either.
John Paul II took strong stands on issues that needed strong stands to be taken on. Under his leadership the Catholic church, and in turn much of the world, has fought to promote a "culture of life", a term now commonly used by President Bush to describe his own administration's social views. The pope also stood up to communism and it's Godless, inhuman tenets, joining hands with other world leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to push for the spread of freedom and human rights around the world. Without the pope's leadership on these issues progress would have been much harder to come by.
In an age of increasing moral relativism and indifference, John Paul II's clear stances on life and freedom have helped give not only the Catholic church, but the world at large the direction it has needed. We can only hope that the next pope will accomplish the same thing.
John Paul II took strong stands on issues that needed strong stands to be taken on. Under his leadership the Catholic church, and in turn much of the world, has fought to promote a "culture of life", a term now commonly used by President Bush to describe his own administration's social views. The pope also stood up to communism and it's Godless, inhuman tenets, joining hands with other world leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to push for the spread of freedom and human rights around the world. Without the pope's leadership on these issues progress would have been much harder to come by.
In an age of increasing moral relativism and indifference, John Paul II's clear stances on life and freedom have helped give not only the Catholic church, but the world at large the direction it has needed. We can only hope that the next pope will accomplish the same thing.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Insuring Electoral Integrity
Yesterday The Washington State House Government, Operations, and Accountability Committee passed five different bills that will among other things, "enhance voter registration record keeping" and "standardize election procedures" throughout the state. However the committee refused to address the main problem with this state's election process when it struck down a Republican amendment that would require all voters to show photo identification when voting at a polling booth. Washington State has one of the loosest elections systems in the country, which leaves us dreadfully vulnerable to widespread voter fraud and tainted elections, as last years gubernatorial race debacle pointed out.
In that election voter fraud was rampant, with more votes cast than actual voters in heavily Democratic King County. Not only that, it has been proven that there were numerous instances of not only felons voting, but dead people as well. This alone cries for us in Washington to tighten up our election process, yet Democrats in the state house proved themselves willing to accept the status quo by refusing to compel those who show up to vote to actually prove they are who they claim to be.
Not only do we need to require photo ID of voters, but we must in some way limit the amount of votes cast by absentee ballots, especially here in Washington, where a majority of votes are cast this way. With the way our system is configured now, it doesn't take much effort for someone to cast a single or multiple fraudulent votes. The fact that Democrats refuse to take any of these measures, not only in Washington State but throughout the nation, sheds light on the fact that all their concern and protest over voter disenfranchisement and fraudulent elections are simply crocodile tears.
A tainted election here in the Evergreen State and substantial voter fraud in Milwaukee, Wisconsin make it clear that our elected representatives need to step up and reform this country's election systems so that every American can rest assured that each election is carried out with the utmost integrity.
In that election voter fraud was rampant, with more votes cast than actual voters in heavily Democratic King County. Not only that, it has been proven that there were numerous instances of not only felons voting, but dead people as well. This alone cries for us in Washington to tighten up our election process, yet Democrats in the state house proved themselves willing to accept the status quo by refusing to compel those who show up to vote to actually prove they are who they claim to be.
Not only do we need to require photo ID of voters, but we must in some way limit the amount of votes cast by absentee ballots, especially here in Washington, where a majority of votes are cast this way. With the way our system is configured now, it doesn't take much effort for someone to cast a single or multiple fraudulent votes. The fact that Democrats refuse to take any of these measures, not only in Washington State but throughout the nation, sheds light on the fact that all their concern and protest over voter disenfranchisement and fraudulent elections are simply crocodile tears.
A tainted election here in the Evergreen State and substantial voter fraud in Milwaukee, Wisconsin make it clear that our elected representatives need to step up and reform this country's election systems so that every American can rest assured that each election is carried out with the utmost integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)