The ongoing national debate over immigration has not been, as so many issues are, one of right vs. left or Republican vs. Democrat, but one between two diverse elements within the Republican Party. On one side you have the enforcement crowd, what I would say comprises the majority of the party. This wing is primarily interested in stronger border enforcement along the Mexican-American border and is intensely opposed to any amnesty, real or perceived, for illegal aliens currently within the country. On the other side are those Republicans, mostly the president and free marketers, who stress the importance of immigration to the country and the economy and support the enactment of a guest worker program.
As is always the case, political considerations are competing with substantive ones. The enforcement crowd points out that border insecurity is a major concern among rank-and-file conservatives and failure to address the situation will result in depressed conservative turnout in this year's mid-terms. Those supporting a guest worker program counter that an anti-immigration perception will be fatal to the party's chances in November and will reverse the inroads the party has made within the Hispanic community and thus jeopardize the party's majority status.
While the prospect of disenchanted Republican voters staying home in the fall is real, immigration has always been fool's gold for the Republican Party. Making the issue the centerpiece of any Republican campaign will ultimately repel more Hispanic and swing voters than it will attract conservative ones. Pete Wilson's disastrous Proposition 187 in '94, which helped him win re-election but led to minority status for the Republican Party in the Golden State since, serves as compelling evidence of this.
Substantively, the matter is complex and the task daunting. No one disputes that the situation along the border is, as of now, unacceptable. The millions of illegal aliens now residing within the United States constitute millions of undocumented individuals whose connections and backgrounds are unbeknownst to us. This is a tangible security concern, and the threat of an al-Qaida or terrorist operative crossing the border and invisibly entering the country is a very real possibility.
In trying to find an avenue to alleviate the border situation several interests have to be weighed. For one, what to do with those illegal aliens currently in the country? I agree with the enforcement crowd that these individuals should not be given simple amnesty; the law should not be altered to respect those who do not respect the laws of this country. With that said the idea of deporting all those who have illegally entered the country is logistically impossible. Moreover, they came here for the right reasons: they saw America as the "shining city on a hill" and place of opportunity that we as Americans have always prided our country in being. Simply deporting the millions of immigrants currently in the country would send the message that America is closed for business to all of those who come here seeking new opportunity and a better life.
The only avenue left then is something less than full deportation but still punitive in nature; a fine perhaps.
In regards to preventing more individuals from crossing the border illegally, simply increasing the amount of border security personnel or building a wall will not cut it. Increasing security personnel might help relieve some stress along the border and help re-enforce the over-stretched personnel currently there, but I shudder to think what kind of deleterious symbolic effect constructing a wall along the entirety of the American-Mexican border would have. The simple fact of the matter is that we will never have sufficient enforcement personnel along the border, unless of course we're interested in maintaining a permanent military force of some kind there. The economic incentive to cross the border is currently too much for any beefed up border security effort to overcome.
The only way to tangibly rectify our border problem is to alter this so the incentive then becomes to come here legally. A guest-worker program, whether it be the president's version or some other, is about the only solution to the problem, at least the only one I am able to envision. Those who come here legally have to wait in long-lines and go through an entire process to gain citizenship or a green card. The process to legally gain entry into the country needs to be expedited and a means in allowing workers from Mexico to come here temporarily so they may earn some money for their family back home, as many come here to do, should be created.
If a tenable solution is to be achieved we must not only increase actual security along the border, but also create new incentive for Mexicans workers to come here legally as opposed to illegally. Granted, creating and enforcing a guest-worker program will be a bureaucratic headache and a daunting challenge. However the question is, would it be any harder to maintain the current situation, which has been impossible to maintain? Something has to change, and the only way to really change the border situation for the better is to not only increase enforcement there, but to de-incentivize coming here illegally which will, more than anything, prevent hordes of illegal immigrants from crossing the border illegally.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Bi-Partisan Panel on Iraq
Any reasonable individual can see the congressionally-christened bi-partisan panel to examine the situation in Iraq for what it is: a gratuitous publicity stunt and a disingenuous and cynical ploy veiled as a serious attempt at assessing the situation in Iraq.
What can this panel possibly reveal about the circumstances in Iraq that would be of any value? Perhaps if it were created in the interest of developing an honest and objective assessment, tasked to do so by a body interested and serious about receiving one, it’s mission would be of some value. But this is not the case. This is a panel crafted by a hyper-partisan body in a hyper-partisan atmosphere whose findings, as worthless as they undoubtedly will be, will be distorted to fit partisan interests.
If congress is serious in ascertaining the state of circumstances in Iraq, instead of simply trying to politically profiteer off of the issue, it can ask the military leaders who are currently leading and executing American operations there. They are the ones capable of providing a competent, valuable assessment, not retired secretaries of state and former congressman.
Hat Tip: Paul Mirengoff
What can this panel possibly reveal about the circumstances in Iraq that would be of any value? Perhaps if it were created in the interest of developing an honest and objective assessment, tasked to do so by a body interested and serious about receiving one, it’s mission would be of some value. But this is not the case. This is a panel crafted by a hyper-partisan body in a hyper-partisan atmosphere whose findings, as worthless as they undoubtedly will be, will be distorted to fit partisan interests.
If congress is serious in ascertaining the state of circumstances in Iraq, instead of simply trying to politically profiteer off of the issue, it can ask the military leaders who are currently leading and executing American operations there. They are the ones capable of providing a competent, valuable assessment, not retired secretaries of state and former congressman.
Hat Tip: Paul Mirengoff
For the Line-Item Veto
Progressing (or regressing) in the direction of the Dodo bird are congressional legislators who responsibly administer the nation’s finances and exercise fiscal prioritization with the federal government’s abundant, but not unlimited resources. In the unending effort to garner public support and political advantage for the next election, legislators spend excessively for short-term political gain, to the detriment of the nation’s long-term financial health.
Of this both parties are guilty, and there is little will within the prevailing political culture in congress to desist the profligate spending so many of it’s members indulge in, largely for their own political and parochial self-interest. The most recent illustration of this is a $1 billion subsidy for home-heating bills, energetically but ultimately ineffectively opposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, who in his opposition acutely stated "there is very limited authorization in the constitution for us to be paying the heating bills of people in this country." That may be so Sen. Coburn, but it sure is politically advantageous with the folks back home in an election year.
With no apparent legislative recourse to curbing excessive spending, and the prospect of presidentially vetoing entire bills because of exorbitant pork located on it’s fringes unappealing, the only viable tool left is the creation of the line-item veto.
The president briefly possessed this tool in the mid-nineties, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional shortly thereafter. That nullified version allowed the president to veto certain portions of spending bills and not others. Congress could override these vetoes, individually, with a two-thirds vote in each house (as has always been the case under the constitution with every presidential veto). This version essentially extended the president’s power from the ability to veto a congressionally-enacted bill in it’s entirety to the ability to veto particular aspects of a spending bill without having to reject the whole.
The new version proposed by President Bush gives the president the ability to designate certain provisions of a spending bill for congressional reconsideration. Both houses, within a timely manner, must then uphold or rescind said provisions by a majority vote without the ability to amend. It is not a "line-item veto" so much as a presidential directive to congress to reconsider.
Though I don’t agree with the Supreme Court that the previous version was unconstitutional (see Section III of Justice Scalia’s opinion in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 {998}), and I would prefer that version over President Bush’s, I see the president’s proposal as one of the only viable means possible in checking the irresponsible culture of profligacy in Washington.
I am by no means suggesting the line-item veto will be a magical silver bullet. For it to be effective there must be 1) a president willing to single out needless and wasteful spending provisions and 2) a congress willing to follow the president’s lead and rescind spending it had recently approved. Satisfying one of these requirements, let alone both, will be tough, for the same perpetrators and creators of any fiscal waste will be the ones charged with rescinding it.
But with all that said, the unitary power of the presidency is probably the only efficacious tool in slashing the various pet projects individual legislators smuggle into legislation (neither house itself has any means at it’s disposal to discard earmarks for legislation without rejecting the entire piece of legislation). In this light, presidential singling-out of certain spending provisions for congressional reconsideration will bring to the public forefront gratuitous earmarks which would have previously gone through literally unnoticed. The line-item veto will, as The Washington Post stated, "spotlight earmarks and the corruption that can come with them." Hopefully anonymous and virtually invisible earmarks will disintegrate under the sheer embarrassment of public exposure.
If we are to drastically overhaul the budget however, an action long overdue, congress is going to have to alter the very culture it operates in. The line-item veto is only a treatment to all that ills congress and Washington, not a cure. Either the current stewards of congress must put the nation’s long-term interests above all else or Americans must elect ones who will. There is only so much minor procedural remedies can accomplish.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker
Of this both parties are guilty, and there is little will within the prevailing political culture in congress to desist the profligate spending so many of it’s members indulge in, largely for their own political and parochial self-interest. The most recent illustration of this is a $1 billion subsidy for home-heating bills, energetically but ultimately ineffectively opposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, who in his opposition acutely stated "there is very limited authorization in the constitution for us to be paying the heating bills of people in this country." That may be so Sen. Coburn, but it sure is politically advantageous with the folks back home in an election year.
With no apparent legislative recourse to curbing excessive spending, and the prospect of presidentially vetoing entire bills because of exorbitant pork located on it’s fringes unappealing, the only viable tool left is the creation of the line-item veto.
The president briefly possessed this tool in the mid-nineties, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional shortly thereafter. That nullified version allowed the president to veto certain portions of spending bills and not others. Congress could override these vetoes, individually, with a two-thirds vote in each house (as has always been the case under the constitution with every presidential veto). This version essentially extended the president’s power from the ability to veto a congressionally-enacted bill in it’s entirety to the ability to veto particular aspects of a spending bill without having to reject the whole.
The new version proposed by President Bush gives the president the ability to designate certain provisions of a spending bill for congressional reconsideration. Both houses, within a timely manner, must then uphold or rescind said provisions by a majority vote without the ability to amend. It is not a "line-item veto" so much as a presidential directive to congress to reconsider.
Though I don’t agree with the Supreme Court that the previous version was unconstitutional (see Section III of Justice Scalia’s opinion in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 {998}), and I would prefer that version over President Bush’s, I see the president’s proposal as one of the only viable means possible in checking the irresponsible culture of profligacy in Washington.
I am by no means suggesting the line-item veto will be a magical silver bullet. For it to be effective there must be 1) a president willing to single out needless and wasteful spending provisions and 2) a congress willing to follow the president’s lead and rescind spending it had recently approved. Satisfying one of these requirements, let alone both, will be tough, for the same perpetrators and creators of any fiscal waste will be the ones charged with rescinding it.
But with all that said, the unitary power of the presidency is probably the only efficacious tool in slashing the various pet projects individual legislators smuggle into legislation (neither house itself has any means at it’s disposal to discard earmarks for legislation without rejecting the entire piece of legislation). In this light, presidential singling-out of certain spending provisions for congressional reconsideration will bring to the public forefront gratuitous earmarks which would have previously gone through literally unnoticed. The line-item veto will, as The Washington Post stated, "spotlight earmarks and the corruption that can come with them." Hopefully anonymous and virtually invisible earmarks will disintegrate under the sheer embarrassment of public exposure.
If we are to drastically overhaul the budget however, an action long overdue, congress is going to have to alter the very culture it operates in. The line-item veto is only a treatment to all that ills congress and Washington, not a cure. Either the current stewards of congress must put the nation’s long-term interests above all else or Americans must elect ones who will. There is only so much minor procedural remedies can accomplish.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker
Monday, March 13, 2006
RE: "Iraq is Lost"
In a startling act of pure Hagelism, conservative icon William F. Buckley elementarily labeled the American project in Iraq a failure. "Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven’t proved strong enough."
Problematic for Mr. Buckley’s assertion is the shallow foundation he lays in supporting it. He cites a man-on-the-street interview of a Sunni merchant published in The New York Times, warranting the obvious response: would you expect the average Sunni to say anything else, given the perch of power America knocked them from in deposing Saddam Hussein? Army Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley, currently stationed in Iraq, opined that the "same interviewing technique would have produced the same result from Berlin in 1945."
Mr. Buckley’s evidentiary support grows only more questionable. Supposedly the anti-American denunciations of Iran’s fanatical and deeply belligerent president further elucidate America’s failure to pacify sectarian hostilities in Iraq. In fact, they elucidate nothing. Democracy in Iraq threatens the theocracy in Iran, and it is no secret that Iran has been actively engaged in subverting Iraqi democracy. That the president of Iran would be condemning America’s mission there should be of little surprise. Further, the statements of a man who has denied the Holocaust ever occurred and who expresses a desire to wipe Israel off the map should not be relied upon as a factor in determining America’s performance in Iraq. I’m surprised an esteemed intellect such as Mr. Buckley has.
Beyond his shaky support Mr. Buckley’s thesis and conclusion are questionable. His claim that Iraqi animosities are "uncontrollable" is dubious. The Samarra bombing was not the first time a Shiite shrine has been targeted by terrorists, and it won’t be the last. It has been the strategy of al Qaeda in Iraq all along to incite civil war and, though sectarian motivated attacks have produced spells of intermittent sectarian violence, civil war has not transpired, at least not yet. Iraq’s political and religious leaders have proven themselves to be remarkably restrained and patient, and the various popular demonstrations for peace in Iraqi cities and towns are indicative of a broad desire within the country to overcome violence and murder and continue on towards a viable democracy and peaceful nation.
Mr. Buckley’s mistaken assessment is not collaborated by circumstances on the ground, but instead reflects the perception of Iraq the mainstream media has decided to cultivate. The media coverage of Iraq has employed a, in the words of Victor Davis Hanson, "if it bleeds, it leads brand of journalism", which highlights "the severed head in the street over the completion of yet another Iraqi school." America sees only an Iraq full of terrorism and sectarian strife, and the public’s mood on Iraq, as well as Mr. Buckley’s, is thus explained.
American soldiers on the ground remain optimistic as the training of Iraqi soldiers continues. As Mr. Hanson described circumstances on the ground, soon "ten divisions of Iraqi soldiers, and over 100,000 police, should be able to crush the insurgency, with the help of a public tired of violence and assured that the future of Iraq is their own".
America has not lost, and our mission in Iraq has not failed. Progress continues to be made in the country, and each day brings the Iraqis closer to the point when a viable and authentic government will emerge and Iraqi forces will be able to fully and effectively engage the enemy. Now is not the time to succumb to a defeatist mentality predicated on an incomplete perspective provided by shameless media coverage. I am surprised and saddened Mr. Buckley, a man whom I respect and admire, has done so.
Problematic for Mr. Buckley’s assertion is the shallow foundation he lays in supporting it. He cites a man-on-the-street interview of a Sunni merchant published in The New York Times, warranting the obvious response: would you expect the average Sunni to say anything else, given the perch of power America knocked them from in deposing Saddam Hussein? Army Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley, currently stationed in Iraq, opined that the "same interviewing technique would have produced the same result from Berlin in 1945."
Mr. Buckley’s evidentiary support grows only more questionable. Supposedly the anti-American denunciations of Iran’s fanatical and deeply belligerent president further elucidate America’s failure to pacify sectarian hostilities in Iraq. In fact, they elucidate nothing. Democracy in Iraq threatens the theocracy in Iran, and it is no secret that Iran has been actively engaged in subverting Iraqi democracy. That the president of Iran would be condemning America’s mission there should be of little surprise. Further, the statements of a man who has denied the Holocaust ever occurred and who expresses a desire to wipe Israel off the map should not be relied upon as a factor in determining America’s performance in Iraq. I’m surprised an esteemed intellect such as Mr. Buckley has.
Beyond his shaky support Mr. Buckley’s thesis and conclusion are questionable. His claim that Iraqi animosities are "uncontrollable" is dubious. The Samarra bombing was not the first time a Shiite shrine has been targeted by terrorists, and it won’t be the last. It has been the strategy of al Qaeda in Iraq all along to incite civil war and, though sectarian motivated attacks have produced spells of intermittent sectarian violence, civil war has not transpired, at least not yet. Iraq’s political and religious leaders have proven themselves to be remarkably restrained and patient, and the various popular demonstrations for peace in Iraqi cities and towns are indicative of a broad desire within the country to overcome violence and murder and continue on towards a viable democracy and peaceful nation.
Mr. Buckley’s mistaken assessment is not collaborated by circumstances on the ground, but instead reflects the perception of Iraq the mainstream media has decided to cultivate. The media coverage of Iraq has employed a, in the words of Victor Davis Hanson, "if it bleeds, it leads brand of journalism", which highlights "the severed head in the street over the completion of yet another Iraqi school." America sees only an Iraq full of terrorism and sectarian strife, and the public’s mood on Iraq, as well as Mr. Buckley’s, is thus explained.
American soldiers on the ground remain optimistic as the training of Iraqi soldiers continues. As Mr. Hanson described circumstances on the ground, soon "ten divisions of Iraqi soldiers, and over 100,000 police, should be able to crush the insurgency, with the help of a public tired of violence and assured that the future of Iraq is their own".
America has not lost, and our mission in Iraq has not failed. Progress continues to be made in the country, and each day brings the Iraqis closer to the point when a viable and authentic government will emerge and Iraqi forces will be able to fully and effectively engage the enemy. Now is not the time to succumb to a defeatist mentality predicated on an incomplete perspective provided by shameless media coverage. I am surprised and saddened Mr. Buckley, a man whom I respect and admire, has done so.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
RE: "The Judging Process and the Judge's Personality" Frank, Jerome
Frank, J. (1930). Law and the Modern Mind. Coward McCann, Inc.
I accept the assertion that stimuli, prejudices, and biases, both conscious and unconscious, are unavoidable in the legal process and, more specifically, in judicial adjudication. An intellectually honest judge, one committed to the ideal of simply applying the law as written, will overcome this however.
Allow me to elaborate. When I first hear of a case and the circumstances and questions it presents I usually develop an opinion, or conclusion, on the spot, without contemplation or due research. This conclusion may be moral or political—outside of the law and without regard for it—and/or based on prior knowledge or conception of the law. If after further examination however, provided I am interested or motivated into going deeper than initial prejudice, I discover legal facts which contradict my opinion, or insufficient legal justification to bear the weight of it, I will reverse my opinion and/or reach or concede to a conclusion opposite of my personal inclinations. I will do this if I am at all intellectually honest that is. Not so much with others but with myself.
As evidence of this I offer the example of the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and it’s questioned constitutionality before the courts. On personal grounds I support the bill and it’s purpose. I oppose abortion in general but the practice of partial-birth abortion strikes me as especially abhorrent. It is a brutal and gruesome practice antithetical to the ethical and moral standards I believe we as a nation should hold. This is a personal moral or values judgment—a personal inclination if you will.
On deeper inspection and contemplation however I realized I had to set aside my personal prejudice and accept a justification which contradicted it. The federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, with all powers not given to it in the constitution, or not denied to the states, belonging to the states. Nowhere in the constitution is a power granted to the federal government allowing it to venture into the issue of abortion. It is a state issue, sovereign of all federal interference.
Though I think the federal partial-birth abortion ban to be a good idea and a good law, it is not the federal government’s law to make. As a result the only honest avenue left for me to take is to espouse the opinion that yes, the law is unconstitutional.
My personal opinions and inclinations, nor the personal opinions and inclinations of any man, are not supercedent to the law. Assuming our judges are not only cognizant of this, but abide by it, than conscious and unconscious stimuli, prejudices, and biases are not a problem. Guided by this principle the rule of law will continue on.
Friday, March 10, 2006
RE: "The Democrats' Real Problem"
Mr. Dionne is off base in his editorial of this past Tuesday. His general thesis, that "Democrats' real problem is that they have failed to show that their critique of the Republican status quo is the essential first step toward an alternative program" is slightly askew, for it is based off of a false premise. The public does not see a "Republican status quo" so much as they see a larger and heavily political status quo in Washington, cultivated by both parties and deeply odious to the prevailing public sense. A recent Battleground poll demonstrates that the public places a pox on both houses, not Republicans or Democrats alone. 92% of Americans feel lawmakers in Washington place partisan politics above all else and 64% believe both parties are equally responsible for the current problems facing congress in regards to lobbyist reform. Democrats will be hard-pressed to run against the status quo on a national basis when the American people find them equally complicit in creating and propagating that status quo. "The bottom line", says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, "is that the mood of the electorate is not an anti-incumbent mood, an anti-Democratic or anti-Republican mood, but an anti-Washington mood." He is exactly right.
Prior to the statement of his thesis, Mr. Dionne mis-characterizes and misinterprets the substance of the '94 mid-terms, discounting the necessity of "offering a clear program" to achieving broad victories in a national election. He correctly states that in '94 "it was disaffection with Bill Clinton.....which created the Republicans' opportunity", but he does not follow this valid argument to it's valid and logical conclusion. Public dissatisfaction with President Clinton created an atmosphere where the public was open and receptive to "a clear program" from Republicans, which Republicans provided. Republicans could not have seized control of congress on public dissatisfaction with President Clinton alone however. They had to complete the sale of a clear plan to the American public who, through their dissatisfaction with the president, gave Republicans the opportunity to pitch. In other words, there was a two-step process towards widespread Republican victories that year. Insinuating Democrats can succeed based on President Bush's unpopularity alone without "offering a clear program" of their own is wishful thinking. They may enjoy modest, scattered gains in one or both houses---such is historically typical for the party out of the White House in mid-terms---but not the massive, nationwide gains Republicans achieved in '94.
Mr. Dionne moves on to dropping a few disingenuous assertions typical of liberal critics of the president. He laments the "budget policies saddling our kids with debt tomorrow to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy today." It is not tax cuts which are saddling future generations with debt, but monstrous and rising entitlement costs and profligate federal spending. As one very wise man once said, "we don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."
Moreover, if we got rid of the Bush tax-cuts federal revenues would increase in the short-term but begin to lag as time progressed. It was the tax-cuts which stimulated the economy in the midst of the last recession and made it much shorter and shallower than it would have been without them. Mr. Dionne seems ignorant of the fact that the millions of jobs created in the last two years and the subsequent growing federal revenues have been predicated on the economic stimulus the tax-cuts provided.
Refusing to stop there, Mr. Dionne asserted that neither Democrats nor President Bush have any "good answer to Iraq." Whether an answer is good or not is subjective, but Mr. Dionne may rest assured that both Democrats and the president have one. Democrats want to get out now while the president continues to execute a policy of supporting and allowing Iraqis to set up their government and nation while training Iraqi security forces to secure their own country. On this front progress is being made. Victor Davis Hanson, a renowned historical scholar and someone far more knowledgeable on the subject of Iraq than Mr. Dionne, says of the situation, "[a]fter visiting the country, I think we can and will win, but just as importantly, unlike in 2003-4, there does not seem to be much of anything we should be doing there that in fact we are not." Iraqis are well on their way down the rocky path to self-sufficiency, terrorism and violence aside. Mr. Dionne is just going to have to deal with the intellectual insult he claims to feel by the president's refusal to vacate a working policy.
Mr. Dionne's general thesis, along with these substantive errors, is intrinsically flawed. Democrat's central problem is not that they have not formed a cogent critique of the Republican status quo, but that the public views them as part of the general status quo in Washington it has grown tired of. If Democrats want to achieve a general, nationwide victory in November they have to change their own course and prove they can change their own churlish behavior and thus alter the culture in Washington. If they do not negligible change in the composition of congress will occur in '07.
Hat Tip: Tom Bevan
Prior to the statement of his thesis, Mr. Dionne mis-characterizes and misinterprets the substance of the '94 mid-terms, discounting the necessity of "offering a clear program" to achieving broad victories in a national election. He correctly states that in '94 "it was disaffection with Bill Clinton.....which created the Republicans' opportunity", but he does not follow this valid argument to it's valid and logical conclusion. Public dissatisfaction with President Clinton created an atmosphere where the public was open and receptive to "a clear program" from Republicans, which Republicans provided. Republicans could not have seized control of congress on public dissatisfaction with President Clinton alone however. They had to complete the sale of a clear plan to the American public who, through their dissatisfaction with the president, gave Republicans the opportunity to pitch. In other words, there was a two-step process towards widespread Republican victories that year. Insinuating Democrats can succeed based on President Bush's unpopularity alone without "offering a clear program" of their own is wishful thinking. They may enjoy modest, scattered gains in one or both houses---such is historically typical for the party out of the White House in mid-terms---but not the massive, nationwide gains Republicans achieved in '94.
Mr. Dionne moves on to dropping a few disingenuous assertions typical of liberal critics of the president. He laments the "budget policies saddling our kids with debt tomorrow to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy today." It is not tax cuts which are saddling future generations with debt, but monstrous and rising entitlement costs and profligate federal spending. As one very wise man once said, "we don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."
Moreover, if we got rid of the Bush tax-cuts federal revenues would increase in the short-term but begin to lag as time progressed. It was the tax-cuts which stimulated the economy in the midst of the last recession and made it much shorter and shallower than it would have been without them. Mr. Dionne seems ignorant of the fact that the millions of jobs created in the last two years and the subsequent growing federal revenues have been predicated on the economic stimulus the tax-cuts provided.
Refusing to stop there, Mr. Dionne asserted that neither Democrats nor President Bush have any "good answer to Iraq." Whether an answer is good or not is subjective, but Mr. Dionne may rest assured that both Democrats and the president have one. Democrats want to get out now while the president continues to execute a policy of supporting and allowing Iraqis to set up their government and nation while training Iraqi security forces to secure their own country. On this front progress is being made. Victor Davis Hanson, a renowned historical scholar and someone far more knowledgeable on the subject of Iraq than Mr. Dionne, says of the situation, "[a]fter visiting the country, I think we can and will win, but just as importantly, unlike in 2003-4, there does not seem to be much of anything we should be doing there that in fact we are not." Iraqis are well on their way down the rocky path to self-sufficiency, terrorism and violence aside. Mr. Dionne is just going to have to deal with the intellectual insult he claims to feel by the president's refusal to vacate a working policy.
Mr. Dionne's general thesis, along with these substantive errors, is intrinsically flawed. Democrat's central problem is not that they have not formed a cogent critique of the Republican status quo, but that the public views them as part of the general status quo in Washington it has grown tired of. If Democrats want to achieve a general, nationwide victory in November they have to change their own course and prove they can change their own churlish behavior and thus alter the culture in Washington. If they do not negligible change in the composition of congress will occur in '07.
Hat Tip: Tom Bevan
Friday, March 03, 2006
On Precedent & Stare Decisis
Reliance on precedent—or adherence to the legal principle of stare decisis—is an integral aspect of the adjudication of the law, and for good reason. Uniformity and consistency, as has often been stated, is the most practical method in insuring consistency, fairness, and the equal protection of the law to all citizens.
Further, seeking guidance from past experience is a completely natural human phenomena. Each individual will, in the course of their day-to-day lives, refer to their own past experiences and/or the past experiences of others when confronted with the necessity of successfully completing an endeavor. As Karl N. Llewellyn has pointed out, "[i]t takes time to solve problems. Once you have solved one it seems foolish to reopen it."
Neither I, nor any other reasonable person denies this. Past experience is not only helpful in solving contemporary problems and challenges, it is a necessity.
What this does not mean however is that precedent or past experience should be blindly followed simply because it is precedent, for such an approach must base itself completely on the assumption that precedent or past experience is always correct, which it surely is not. I would never refer to a past example if I knew, or even suspected that it was incorrect. Neither should a jurist, or tribunal of jurists, follow and replicate a precedent if they know or believe it to be wrong. As important as learning from past successes so that they may be replicated is, so is learning from past wrongs so that they may be rectified. Adherence to bad precedent insures not only that prior wrongs are replicated, but propagated and multiplied into the present and future as well. The re-application of incorrect precedent is, in practical terms, nothing short of adding fuel to the fire.
Those against the reversal of Roe v. Wade on the basis of stare decisis alone would do well to keep this in mind.
Further, seeking guidance from past experience is a completely natural human phenomena. Each individual will, in the course of their day-to-day lives, refer to their own past experiences and/or the past experiences of others when confronted with the necessity of successfully completing an endeavor. As Karl N. Llewellyn has pointed out, "[i]t takes time to solve problems. Once you have solved one it seems foolish to reopen it."
Neither I, nor any other reasonable person denies this. Past experience is not only helpful in solving contemporary problems and challenges, it is a necessity.
What this does not mean however is that precedent or past experience should be blindly followed simply because it is precedent, for such an approach must base itself completely on the assumption that precedent or past experience is always correct, which it surely is not. I would never refer to a past example if I knew, or even suspected that it was incorrect. Neither should a jurist, or tribunal of jurists, follow and replicate a precedent if they know or believe it to be wrong. As important as learning from past successes so that they may be replicated is, so is learning from past wrongs so that they may be rectified. Adherence to bad precedent insures not only that prior wrongs are replicated, but propagated and multiplied into the present and future as well. The re-application of incorrect precedent is, in practical terms, nothing short of adding fuel to the fire.
Those against the reversal of Roe v. Wade on the basis of stare decisis alone would do well to keep this in mind.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
RE: "Islamistphobia-Phobia"
Tony Blankley takes umbrage at perceived charges from "free market and other conservative commentators" of nativism and Islamophoiba leveled at critics of the controversial port deal. "With 70 percent of the public in opposition to the port deal, this is as searing a criticism of American tolerance as ever has been hurled from America’s cultural or political opponents over the years. No Soviet propagandist or third-world revolutionary has more stingingly libeled the American people."
Mr. Blankley, a columnist and man of intellect I highly respect, is exaggerating the substance and effect of conservative criticism. Conservatives such as myself, in my view at least, have criticized the rank hypocrisy on the part of liberals, not conservatives, who have opposed this deal yet, as I said in a previous post, "cry injustice" when young Arab males are the subject of greater scrutiny in airport security screening. Conservatives don’t squirm at a limited level of profiling and support a form of it in this prospective port deal and, ergo, are entirely consistent. We believe as a matter of practicality that security threats of a specific terrorist nature are more likely to emanate from Arab males (I believe there is a more likely general threat posed by all young males, of all colors and ethnicities—Jose Padilla and John Walker Lindh bear this out) and, in extension, from Arab countries.
Personally, my main criticism of the port deal’s critics is not that they are motivated by any prejudices or unfounded fears, but they are motivated by un-substantive political concerns (outflanking President Bush on national security or establishing their independence from him). No one seriously accuses the American people and legitimate critics, such as Mr. Blankley, of nativism or Islamophobia. The American people are a tolerant, broad-minded people, and their concerns with this deal are much more substantive and legitimate than the concerns of their leaders in congress.
Mr. Blankley, a columnist and man of intellect I highly respect, is exaggerating the substance and effect of conservative criticism. Conservatives such as myself, in my view at least, have criticized the rank hypocrisy on the part of liberals, not conservatives, who have opposed this deal yet, as I said in a previous post, "cry injustice" when young Arab males are the subject of greater scrutiny in airport security screening. Conservatives don’t squirm at a limited level of profiling and support a form of it in this prospective port deal and, ergo, are entirely consistent. We believe as a matter of practicality that security threats of a specific terrorist nature are more likely to emanate from Arab males (I believe there is a more likely general threat posed by all young males, of all colors and ethnicities—Jose Padilla and John Walker Lindh bear this out) and, in extension, from Arab countries.
Personally, my main criticism of the port deal’s critics is not that they are motivated by any prejudices or unfounded fears, but they are motivated by un-substantive political concerns (outflanking President Bush on national security or establishing their independence from him). No one seriously accuses the American people and legitimate critics, such as Mr. Blankley, of nativism or Islamophobia. The American people are a tolerant, broad-minded people, and their concerns with this deal are much more substantive and legitimate than the concerns of their leaders in congress.
Hamas & Democracy in the Middle East
One of the issues central to the debate over the war on terror is whether the Middle East is ready for and/or capable of democratic governance. Elements who believe, for whatever reason, the region is culturally inhospitable to democracy, on both the right and left, point to Hamas’ success in recent parliamentary elections within the Palestinian territories as evidence of the tenet that democracy is not the ultimate solution there; it is unpredictable and dangerous in a region permeated with discontent and radicalism and, ergo, may produce leaders openly hostile towards the United States and western democracies.
I reject this conclusion. It is true the Middle East is ripe with discontent and radicalism. But this is why democracy promotion should be America’s policy in the Middle East, not why we should avoid it. Hamas’ success in the Palestinian elections demonstrates only that elections alone do not a democracy make. A democracy is a nation-state with an educated citizenry, one properly disposed to defend their rights and freedoms and to secure the well-being of themselves, their children, their neighbors, and their posterity. It also has certain hallmarks and institutions, which I will enumerate later. Elections are simply a function of a legitimate democracy; a sign, but not proof, that one exists.
Immediately following Yasser Arafat’s death in December ‘04 I and many others believed the years of indoctrination he instigated and sponsored within the Palestinian territories would prevent the Palestinians from forming a legitimate democracy in the foreseeable future. Under Arafat textbooks taught anti-Semitic/anti-Israel propaganda to Palestinian children, dissent was stifled, legitimate news and information was prevented from being disseminated. The Palestinians had been so conditioned to point the blame for their poverty and misery on Israel—not on Arafat’s authoritarian rule, where it belonged—and to support terror as a viable political tool that reversing this mind-set would and will take years.
Hamas’ popularly-endowed majority is no surprise, for it reflects the undemocratic society that Arafat so carefully contrived. With an atmosphere such as this popular elections will always produce men and leaders antithetical to American and other western democracies’ interests.
Democracy, legitimate democracy, is the only solution to this. Fostering the rise of democratic societies in the Middle East will curtail the atmosphere that prompts the democratic ascension of individuals and factions such as Hamas to power. It will also re-cultivate the soil which terrorism finds so fertile. Tyranny fosters poverty and discontent, which in turn fosters radicalism and terrorism. To eradicate radical Islamic terrorism it’s root cause, the fires of tyranny, will have to be extinguished, replaced by a new fire capable of consuming an entire country and region once lit. The birth of democracy within Iraq and it’s effects on it’s neighbors in the Middle East affirm this.
If elections in the greater Middle East are ever to be more than the popular expression of undemocratic societies a democratic culture and a free and open society have to be developed. An open and free flow of information must be allowed. Democratic dissidents must be empowered. Meaningful political discourse must transpire. Tyrants and despots must be de-legitimized and weakened. A free press, an independent judiciary, religious freedom, etc., will have to be established. Then, and only then, will popular elections bear desirable fruit.
Democracy can work in the Middle East, and it must work if the region is ever to cease breeding radical Islamic terrorism. Given the chance and the support it will work, and is working. However, as the Palestinian elections exhibit, popular elections will only reflect a legitimate democracy if the institutions and traits defining one already exist.
I reject this conclusion. It is true the Middle East is ripe with discontent and radicalism. But this is why democracy promotion should be America’s policy in the Middle East, not why we should avoid it. Hamas’ success in the Palestinian elections demonstrates only that elections alone do not a democracy make. A democracy is a nation-state with an educated citizenry, one properly disposed to defend their rights and freedoms and to secure the well-being of themselves, their children, their neighbors, and their posterity. It also has certain hallmarks and institutions, which I will enumerate later. Elections are simply a function of a legitimate democracy; a sign, but not proof, that one exists.
Immediately following Yasser Arafat’s death in December ‘04 I and many others believed the years of indoctrination he instigated and sponsored within the Palestinian territories would prevent the Palestinians from forming a legitimate democracy in the foreseeable future. Under Arafat textbooks taught anti-Semitic/anti-Israel propaganda to Palestinian children, dissent was stifled, legitimate news and information was prevented from being disseminated. The Palestinians had been so conditioned to point the blame for their poverty and misery on Israel—not on Arafat’s authoritarian rule, where it belonged—and to support terror as a viable political tool that reversing this mind-set would and will take years.
Hamas’ popularly-endowed majority is no surprise, for it reflects the undemocratic society that Arafat so carefully contrived. With an atmosphere such as this popular elections will always produce men and leaders antithetical to American and other western democracies’ interests.
Democracy, legitimate democracy, is the only solution to this. Fostering the rise of democratic societies in the Middle East will curtail the atmosphere that prompts the democratic ascension of individuals and factions such as Hamas to power. It will also re-cultivate the soil which terrorism finds so fertile. Tyranny fosters poverty and discontent, which in turn fosters radicalism and terrorism. To eradicate radical Islamic terrorism it’s root cause, the fires of tyranny, will have to be extinguished, replaced by a new fire capable of consuming an entire country and region once lit. The birth of democracy within Iraq and it’s effects on it’s neighbors in the Middle East affirm this.
If elections in the greater Middle East are ever to be more than the popular expression of undemocratic societies a democratic culture and a free and open society have to be developed. An open and free flow of information must be allowed. Democratic dissidents must be empowered. Meaningful political discourse must transpire. Tyrants and despots must be de-legitimized and weakened. A free press, an independent judiciary, religious freedom, etc., will have to be established. Then, and only then, will popular elections bear desirable fruit.
Democracy can work in the Middle East, and it must work if the region is ever to cease breeding radical Islamic terrorism. Given the chance and the support it will work, and is working. However, as the Palestinian elections exhibit, popular elections will only reflect a legitimate democracy if the institutions and traits defining one already exist.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
American Foreign Interests over Politics Please
There is very little of substance behind the impending port deal with a government run firm from the United Arab Emirates beyond bipartisan and baseless hysteria and political posturing. On the matter of port security the sale will change virtually nothing. The U.A.E. firm will run commercial operations while the Department of Homeland Security will continue to oversee security and inspections, just as it always has.
Moreover, that a company from an Islamic country should not be able to run the commercial operations of various American ports is an amplified version of the type of racial and ethnic profiling Democrats usually condemn. In a Friday column Charles Krauthammer spoke of the fact that the same Democrats who object to this port deal would cry injustice if "a citizen of the U.A.E. walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic" and was given "any more scrutiny than....my sweet 84-year-old mother." The hypocrisy is evident and obvious.
In that same column Mr. Krauthammer provided the only legitimate security concern associated with the deal’s consummation raised so far; the possibility that al-Qaeda sympathizers or agents within the company might, through the obvious cooperation and consultation that will have to take place between the U.A.E. company and D.H.S., become aware of sensitive port security information and share it with al-Qaeda members stationed either overseas or, possibly, in America.
This possibility is not motivating congressional opposition to the deal however; a desire to either, depending on what side of the aisle they are on, outflank the president on national security or establish their independence from him is.
But political motivations should not derail a deal when such an outcome could damage the diplomatic relationship with a country providing valuable assistance in the execution of the war on terror. The president is right to support the deal and would be right in vetoing any legislation which would invalidate it.
Hat Tip: OpinionJournal
Moreover, that a company from an Islamic country should not be able to run the commercial operations of various American ports is an amplified version of the type of racial and ethnic profiling Democrats usually condemn. In a Friday column Charles Krauthammer spoke of the fact that the same Democrats who object to this port deal would cry injustice if "a citizen of the U.A.E. walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic" and was given "any more scrutiny than....my sweet 84-year-old mother." The hypocrisy is evident and obvious.
In that same column Mr. Krauthammer provided the only legitimate security concern associated with the deal’s consummation raised so far; the possibility that al-Qaeda sympathizers or agents within the company might, through the obvious cooperation and consultation that will have to take place between the U.A.E. company and D.H.S., become aware of sensitive port security information and share it with al-Qaeda members stationed either overseas or, possibly, in America.
This possibility is not motivating congressional opposition to the deal however; a desire to either, depending on what side of the aisle they are on, outflank the president on national security or establish their independence from him is.
But political motivations should not derail a deal when such an outcome could damage the diplomatic relationship with a country providing valuable assistance in the execution of the war on terror. The president is right to support the deal and would be right in vetoing any legislation which would invalidate it.
Hat Tip: OpinionJournal
Saturday, February 25, 2006
South Dakota Abortion Legislation
The South Dakota legislature passed a comprehensive piece of legislation yesterday which, if signed by the governor, would prohibit abortions in all circumstances excluding those performed to save the mother’s life.
Consensus among the punditry fashions the legislation as the next major challenge to Roe. Though I don’t believe anyone can speak to that quite yet, this bill will inevitably spark a challenge in federal court and, probably, a reversal. District and circuit courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions and precedent, which have decidedly frowned upon any statutory restrictions on abortion. If such narrowly constructed restrictions, such as those on partial-birth abortion, are antithetical to the constitution than surely so to is this bill.
Substantively, I would personally oppose the bill’s passage into law. I am generally pro-life and would support a general ban on abortion here in Washington State—provided that bill contained exceptions for victims of rape and incest, provisions absent from South Dakota’s version. I simply do not believe you can force a woman, victimized by either act, to carry a pregnancy to term in which they had no choice in creating.
Consensus among the punditry fashions the legislation as the next major challenge to Roe. Though I don’t believe anyone can speak to that quite yet, this bill will inevitably spark a challenge in federal court and, probably, a reversal. District and circuit courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions and precedent, which have decidedly frowned upon any statutory restrictions on abortion. If such narrowly constructed restrictions, such as those on partial-birth abortion, are antithetical to the constitution than surely so to is this bill.
Substantively, I would personally oppose the bill’s passage into law. I am generally pro-life and would support a general ban on abortion here in Washington State—provided that bill contained exceptions for victims of rape and incest, provisions absent from South Dakota’s version. I simply do not believe you can force a woman, victimized by either act, to carry a pregnancy to term in which they had no choice in creating.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Elite In Their Minds Only
Only in today’s beltway and current media and political culture is a furor such as that over the Cheney hunting incident possible. The incident itself was fairly benign in nature; an honest but unfortunate mistake. That it carries little, if any, relevant or news-worthy substance is painfully implicit.
Nevertheless, that news of the incident was not released to the press until the next day, and to a small-town Texas newspaper no less, agitated the Washington press corps into a state of furious and righteous indignation. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was berated by the White House press corps early in the week, most notably NBC correspondent David Gregory, for the delay and the supposed affront the vice president’s lack of forthcomingness had been on the "public’s right to know".
This behavior raises one really serious question, unrelated to those pointedly directed at Mr. McCllelan. It is one which I doubt David Gregory and his colleagues would have a good answer to. Instead of focusing on the real substantive issues of the day—such as Iraq, Iran, the NSA intercept program, etc.—why did the Washington press corps spend the entire week preoccupied with the fact that they weren’t given immediate notice of a meaningless hunting accident in which the vice president of the United States happened to be a party to?
It is perfectly legitimate to quibble—probably meaningless and small-minded, but legitimate—over whether, as a matter of public and press relations, it would have been wiser to release a public statement earlier, immediately after the victim had been taken care of and the proper authorities had been notified. But such a minor question or controversy surely does not warrant the veritable eruption we witnessed this past week, as if "Quailgate" was a modern equivalent to Watergate. Instead of doing their job by providing insightful and objective reporting on the meaningful news and issues of our time, the Washington press corps indulged in an unbecoming tantrum because they, the elite Washington press corps for goodness sake, were not informed of the incident until the next day.
Make no mistake, this outcry had nothing to do with any "public right to know", but everything to do with an elitist and narcissist press corps. They betrayed themselves as the unprofessional, sensationalistic, and arrogant horde we all suspected they were.
This faux scandal has demonstrated the Washington press corps is elite not in the exceptional level of work they do or the position they hold in the media profession, but in the value they mistakenly hold in themselves. They are elite in their own minds only.
Nevertheless, that news of the incident was not released to the press until the next day, and to a small-town Texas newspaper no less, agitated the Washington press corps into a state of furious and righteous indignation. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was berated by the White House press corps early in the week, most notably NBC correspondent David Gregory, for the delay and the supposed affront the vice president’s lack of forthcomingness had been on the "public’s right to know".
This behavior raises one really serious question, unrelated to those pointedly directed at Mr. McCllelan. It is one which I doubt David Gregory and his colleagues would have a good answer to. Instead of focusing on the real substantive issues of the day—such as Iraq, Iran, the NSA intercept program, etc.—why did the Washington press corps spend the entire week preoccupied with the fact that they weren’t given immediate notice of a meaningless hunting accident in which the vice president of the United States happened to be a party to?
It is perfectly legitimate to quibble—probably meaningless and small-minded, but legitimate—over whether, as a matter of public and press relations, it would have been wiser to release a public statement earlier, immediately after the victim had been taken care of and the proper authorities had been notified. But such a minor question or controversy surely does not warrant the veritable eruption we witnessed this past week, as if "Quailgate" was a modern equivalent to Watergate. Instead of doing their job by providing insightful and objective reporting on the meaningful news and issues of our time, the Washington press corps indulged in an unbecoming tantrum because they, the elite Washington press corps for goodness sake, were not informed of the incident until the next day.
Make no mistake, this outcry had nothing to do with any "public right to know", but everything to do with an elitist and narcissist press corps. They betrayed themselves as the unprofessional, sensationalistic, and arrogant horde we all suspected they were.
This faux scandal has demonstrated the Washington press corps is elite not in the exceptional level of work they do or the position they hold in the media profession, but in the value they mistakenly hold in themselves. They are elite in their own minds only.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
The Saddam Tapes
Authenticated tapes of meetings between Saddam Hussein and his various aides were released earlier this week. Nary a stir has arisen within the chattering classes however, and for obvious reason---they shed light on nothing we did not already know. They simply chronicle that under Saddam Hussein the nation of Iraq deliberately deceived the world about the existence of WMD in that country. As Charles Duelfer, the former head of the search for WMD following the U.S. invasion has pointed out, the Iraqi regime "had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted." These tapes are only further evidence of this.
With that said, there are reportedly thousands of documents and numerous tapes regarding Iraqi WMD that have yet to be translated, authenticated, and/or released. To ever fully discern the truth about Saddam's weapons program all these documents and tapes, as well as any other evidence left over, will have to be evaluated and released. The sooner the better.
With that said, there are reportedly thousands of documents and numerous tapes regarding Iraqi WMD that have yet to be translated, authenticated, and/or released. To ever fully discern the truth about Saddam's weapons program all these documents and tapes, as well as any other evidence left over, will have to be evaluated and released. The sooner the better.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Sen. Tom Coburn
Sen. Tom Coburn is no politician. A politician concerns himself more with politics than the good governance of the nation or his constituency. His main concern is re-election, thus he worries more about polls, photo-ops, publicity, sound-bites, and selfish, short-term convenience than the long-term national interest. He will follow the path of least political resistance, whether or not that path is ultimately the right one for the nation to venture down or not.
No, Sen. Coburn is a statesman. A statesman does the opposite of what I described above. Sen. Coburn is solely interested in the national interest. For example, he has led a crusade against earmarks because they elevate parochial interests above the national interest by creating burdensome deficits which, as George Will pointed out, "reverse the American tradition of making sacrifices for the benefit of rising generations." Despite this, politicians love earmarks. Bringing home the pork is always something they may crow about before their constituents come election time.
Another case in point; when running for congress in 1994 the senator promised to limit himself to three terms—a promise he kept. A politician would have made the same politically convenient promise and then found an equally convenient excuse to violate it if and when the opportunity arose.
Sen. Coburn has promised to only spend two terms in the Senate, should he be fortunate enough to be re-elected by the people of Oklahoma when his current term expires. If he is not it will not bother him however, "[t]he Republic will live on" as he puts it. He is simply more interested in shaming the Senate into governing responsibly then re-election and political survival(the central concern of the typical politician). Such statesmanship is far too scarce these days.
No, Sen. Coburn is a statesman. A statesman does the opposite of what I described above. Sen. Coburn is solely interested in the national interest. For example, he has led a crusade against earmarks because they elevate parochial interests above the national interest by creating burdensome deficits which, as George Will pointed out, "reverse the American tradition of making sacrifices for the benefit of rising generations." Despite this, politicians love earmarks. Bringing home the pork is always something they may crow about before their constituents come election time.
Another case in point; when running for congress in 1994 the senator promised to limit himself to three terms—a promise he kept. A politician would have made the same politically convenient promise and then found an equally convenient excuse to violate it if and when the opportunity arose.
Sen. Coburn has promised to only spend two terms in the Senate, should he be fortunate enough to be re-elected by the people of Oklahoma when his current term expires. If he is not it will not bother him however, "[t]he Republic will live on" as he puts it. He is simply more interested in shaming the Senate into governing responsibly then re-election and political survival(the central concern of the typical politician). Such statesmanship is far too scarce these days.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Majority Leader Boehner
The GOP House Caucus elected Congressman John Boehner of Ohio as majority leader last week. My first choice would have been Congressman Shadegg of Arizona, the purer small-government and reform-minded Republican of the three candidates. However Congressman Boehner was my clear second choice, miles ahead of the third candidate and assumed favorite, Majority Whip Blunt, whose ascension from whip to leader would have signaled nothing but a troubling complacency and satisfaction with the status quo among House Republicans.
Congressman Boehner’s victory is almost certainly a result of the realization among House Republicans that they can no longer get away with the status quo; but they in no way desire the wholesale upheaval Congressman Shadegg’s ascension to the top post would have entailed. Their compromise was John Boehner. The boat had to be rocked, they figured Congressman Boehner will rock it the least.
To Congressman Boehner’s credit though, he has embraced reform every step of the way. He has opposed the embarrassing prevalence of earmarks in the legislative process and has never personally employed the earmark tactic on behalf of his district. Moreover, he has proposed a comprehensive plan for getting the Republican majority back on track in the House.
The caucus had grown stagnant under the prior leadership and hopefully Congressman Boehner’s leadership will reinvigorate the Republican majority and shatter the legislative logjam that has descended upon the House and the capitol. A great tragedy it will be to have a working majority and do virtually nothing with it. It is now tasked to Majority Leader Boehner to stave off such a calamity.
Congressman Boehner’s victory is almost certainly a result of the realization among House Republicans that they can no longer get away with the status quo; but they in no way desire the wholesale upheaval Congressman Shadegg’s ascension to the top post would have entailed. Their compromise was John Boehner. The boat had to be rocked, they figured Congressman Boehner will rock it the least.
To Congressman Boehner’s credit though, he has embraced reform every step of the way. He has opposed the embarrassing prevalence of earmarks in the legislative process and has never personally employed the earmark tactic on behalf of his district. Moreover, he has proposed a comprehensive plan for getting the Republican majority back on track in the House.
The caucus had grown stagnant under the prior leadership and hopefully Congressman Boehner’s leadership will reinvigorate the Republican majority and shatter the legislative logjam that has descended upon the House and the capitol. A great tragedy it will be to have a working majority and do virtually nothing with it. It is now tasked to Majority Leader Boehner to stave off such a calamity.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The State of the Union
The recurring theme from the president’s address tonight was bipartisanship and national unity. In the beginning of the address the president declared his common purpose with congress and that "together we will make (the Union) stronger." He concluded by declaring that we as a nation will "show....courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom’s advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land."
In between he called for the creation of a bipartisan commission to analyze the effects the impending retirement of the baby boomers will have on the federal government. He declared that both parties deserve credit for the continuing social renaissance within America (less abortions, less teen pregnancies, less welfare cases, less violent crimes, less drug abuse, etc,). And he cited the character of the American people as the nation’s greatest strength, as well as Americans decency towards others.
This president clearly sees himself as the leader of the nation that will lead the world, strong and unified. He made it clear he is the president of the United States, with an emphasis on "United".
The address was a refreshing alternative to all of the noxious partisan rancor that has consumed Washington of late. I suspect the president’s ascendant tone will appeal to those more concerned with getting things done than engaging in and listening to vacuous partisan warfare.
In between he called for the creation of a bipartisan commission to analyze the effects the impending retirement of the baby boomers will have on the federal government. He declared that both parties deserve credit for the continuing social renaissance within America (less abortions, less teen pregnancies, less welfare cases, less violent crimes, less drug abuse, etc,). And he cited the character of the American people as the nation’s greatest strength, as well as Americans decency towards others.
This president clearly sees himself as the leader of the nation that will lead the world, strong and unified. He made it clear he is the president of the United States, with an emphasis on "United".
The address was a refreshing alternative to all of the noxious partisan rancor that has consumed Washington of late. I suspect the president’s ascendant tone will appeal to those more concerned with getting things done than engaging in and listening to vacuous partisan warfare.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
McGavick-Cantwell Senate Race
I attended a GOP dinner the other night in which candidate for U.S. Senate Mike McGavick was the featured speaker. Very impressive individual. Charismatic, articulate, and seemingly genuine. He spoke without a prompt, notes, or even a podium; smoothly delivering his remarks from start to finish.
Pitted side by side with Sen. Maria Cantwell he will likely shine. She is nowhere near the talented speaker nor public figure Mr. McGavick is. Sen. Cantwell looks uncomfortable and small when delivering public comments. Mr. McGavick looks the part of a U.S. senator, which is a large part of the equation in getting elected to the U.S. Senate. Do not expect the Cantwell campaign to give Mr. McGavick more than one debate in the fall.
With that said, Mr. McGavick still faces a rough road, for various reasons. He is largely unknown within the state. This is a Democratic state where Republicans have won virtually nothing of late. Moreover, there is a perceived trend towards Democrats this election cycle, fueled by President Bush’s soft approval ratings and scandal-plagued Republicans in congress.
To overcome this Mr. McGavick will need to focus on building his public profile and name recognition. He will need to focus on the issues voters care about—the war on terror, the economy, etc. The public is not as concerned with the so called "Culture of Corruption" in congress as Democrats think they are; and they will be disappointed if their candidates such as Sen. Cantwell make this their main campaign issue. More than anything, Americans are concerned with national security and their personal safety—Mr McGavick would be wise to structure his message accordingly.
Mr. McGavick is a strong candidate and would make a strong senator in my view. Sen. Cantwell is not. She has had an undistinguished record of accomplishment so far and appears frail and unassertive in public. On a level playing field with all things equal Mr. McGavick would undoubtedly defeat Sen. Cantwell handily.
The playing field is not level however and all is not equal. Sen. Cantwell enjoys the advantages of incumbency and party affiliation. Mr. McGavick is still a largely unknown entity within the state and needs to sufficiently introduce himself to the voters before he can legitimately and substantively challenge the senator on the issues.
Accomplishing this as well as overcoming a Democrats’ natural advantage in a Democratic-leaning state this time around may be a task too tough to ask for. Mike McGavick is a strong candidate however and a strong campaign will leave him in a strong position for another Senate run in the future—as Dino Rossi’s strong but ultimately unsuccessful gubernatorial run of 2004 has left him in a strong position to run again in 2008.
Pitted side by side with Sen. Maria Cantwell he will likely shine. She is nowhere near the talented speaker nor public figure Mr. McGavick is. Sen. Cantwell looks uncomfortable and small when delivering public comments. Mr. McGavick looks the part of a U.S. senator, which is a large part of the equation in getting elected to the U.S. Senate. Do not expect the Cantwell campaign to give Mr. McGavick more than one debate in the fall.
With that said, Mr. McGavick still faces a rough road, for various reasons. He is largely unknown within the state. This is a Democratic state where Republicans have won virtually nothing of late. Moreover, there is a perceived trend towards Democrats this election cycle, fueled by President Bush’s soft approval ratings and scandal-plagued Republicans in congress.
To overcome this Mr. McGavick will need to focus on building his public profile and name recognition. He will need to focus on the issues voters care about—the war on terror, the economy, etc. The public is not as concerned with the so called "Culture of Corruption" in congress as Democrats think they are; and they will be disappointed if their candidates such as Sen. Cantwell make this their main campaign issue. More than anything, Americans are concerned with national security and their personal safety—Mr McGavick would be wise to structure his message accordingly.
Mr. McGavick is a strong candidate and would make a strong senator in my view. Sen. Cantwell is not. She has had an undistinguished record of accomplishment so far and appears frail and unassertive in public. On a level playing field with all things equal Mr. McGavick would undoubtedly defeat Sen. Cantwell handily.
The playing field is not level however and all is not equal. Sen. Cantwell enjoys the advantages of incumbency and party affiliation. Mr. McGavick is still a largely unknown entity within the state and needs to sufficiently introduce himself to the voters before he can legitimately and substantively challenge the senator on the issues.
Accomplishing this as well as overcoming a Democrats’ natural advantage in a Democratic-leaning state this time around may be a task too tough to ask for. Mike McGavick is a strong candidate however and a strong campaign will leave him in a strong position for another Senate run in the future—as Dino Rossi’s strong but ultimately unsuccessful gubernatorial run of 2004 has left him in a strong position to run again in 2008.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Conservatives Win in Canada
Conservatives have won the election in Canada tonight and will lead that nation’s government for the first time in thirteen years. A marked change in Canadian politics will ensue.
Conservatives have pledged to diminish some of the bureaucratic regulations on Canada’s social programs as well as cut taxes and return greater power back to the nation’s provinces and territories. These reforms will be a boon to Canada’s economy and subsequently the commercial trade with the United States, which already amounts to $1.5 billion a day.
Moreover, a Prime Minister Harper will mean a Canada more congenial and attentive to American concerns than the previous government. You can expect an end to the Canadian sniping on matters such as Kyoto and Iraq, as well as one more hospitable to the idea of joining the U.S. missile defense plan.
Most importantly, Harper and his fellow Conservatives have expressed a desire to strengthen border security and make it tougher for terrorists to use the U.S.-Canadian border as an entry point into this country(a similar desire from the Mexican government would be real nice as well). Terrorists have tried to enter through the northern border before and greater Canadian security participation and attention there is great news for America.
Conservatives have pledged to diminish some of the bureaucratic regulations on Canada’s social programs as well as cut taxes and return greater power back to the nation’s provinces and territories. These reforms will be a boon to Canada’s economy and subsequently the commercial trade with the United States, which already amounts to $1.5 billion a day.
Moreover, a Prime Minister Harper will mean a Canada more congenial and attentive to American concerns than the previous government. You can expect an end to the Canadian sniping on matters such as Kyoto and Iraq, as well as one more hospitable to the idea of joining the U.S. missile defense plan.
Most importantly, Harper and his fellow Conservatives have expressed a desire to strengthen border security and make it tougher for terrorists to use the U.S.-Canadian border as an entry point into this country(a similar desire from the Mexican government would be real nice as well). Terrorists have tried to enter through the northern border before and greater Canadian security participation and attention there is great news for America.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Sharon's Legacy
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke of last week has knocked him from the political stage. At this point it is hard to envision any scenario in which he could return to his post. As a result a great deal of uncertainty now looms over Israel and the Middle East peace process. Sharon’s tenure as prime minister supplied the steady leadership and much of the impetus responsible for fostering long-awaited progress in the peace process.
As a benefit of Prime Minister Sharon’s stewardship Israel has not duplicated the mistakes of Oslo. Instead of empowering tyranny and continuously strengthening Yasser Arafat, Israel shunned the late chairman, leaving him marginalized and isolated in his final years.
Moreover, the security wall being built, despite the demurrals of the Palestinians and much of the international community, has largely kept Palestinian suicide bombers off of Israeli streets. Because of his fortitude, and along with his willingness to target terrorist leaders for assassination, terror is no longer a viable political tool for the Palestinian Authority.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in his column of last week, Prime Minister Sharon provided a third way in Israeli politics. He did not futilely attempt to make peace with a PLO uninterested in peace; but neither did he try to rule and govern a "young, radicalized, growing Arab population committed to Palestinian independence." Instead, Prime Minister Sharon has withdrawn behind an Israel with a newly designed border defined by the security fence. The result has been a "smaller but secure and demographically Jewish Israel."
Prime Minister Sharon’s departure from the political stage however jeopardizes this progress and the prospect of continued progress in the future. Sharon is probably the only leader within Israel with the clout and credibility to lead Israel along this third way. No such leader resides within Israel’s two major political parties, right wing Likud and left wing Labor. It is unclear whether one resides within Sharon’s newly crafted Kadima party. Hopefully one does—the prospect of peace and security in the Middle East may depend on it.
As a benefit of Prime Minister Sharon’s stewardship Israel has not duplicated the mistakes of Oslo. Instead of empowering tyranny and continuously strengthening Yasser Arafat, Israel shunned the late chairman, leaving him marginalized and isolated in his final years.
Moreover, the security wall being built, despite the demurrals of the Palestinians and much of the international community, has largely kept Palestinian suicide bombers off of Israeli streets. Because of his fortitude, and along with his willingness to target terrorist leaders for assassination, terror is no longer a viable political tool for the Palestinian Authority.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in his column of last week, Prime Minister Sharon provided a third way in Israeli politics. He did not futilely attempt to make peace with a PLO uninterested in peace; but neither did he try to rule and govern a "young, radicalized, growing Arab population committed to Palestinian independence." Instead, Prime Minister Sharon has withdrawn behind an Israel with a newly designed border defined by the security fence. The result has been a "smaller but secure and demographically Jewish Israel."
Prime Minister Sharon’s departure from the political stage however jeopardizes this progress and the prospect of continued progress in the future. Sharon is probably the only leader within Israel with the clout and credibility to lead Israel along this third way. No such leader resides within Israel’s two major political parties, right wing Likud and left wing Labor. It is unclear whether one resides within Sharon’s newly crafted Kadima party. Hopefully one does—the prospect of peace and security in the Middle East may depend on it.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Footnote: "Confirm Judge Alito"
Washington Post, Editorial, January 15, 2006:
I would submit that, unfortunately, that "dangerous precedent" has been set, as one-sided as it may be. Republicans continue to follow the historical precedent of voting to confirm the nominee of another party even if they strongly disagree with his/her jurisprudence—so long as that nominee is adequately qualified. The nominations and confirmations of President Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, bear this out.
Democrats on the other hand poisoned the well nearly twenty years ago with the rejection of Reagan appointee Robert Bork. Judge Bork was a legal genius and one of the most qualified and thoughtful Supreme Court nominees in the nation’s history. He had a constitutionalist/originalist record and jurisprudence however which conflicted with the Democrats’ own, often extra-constitutional, jurisprudence. As a result Judge Bork was slandered, nearly the minute his nomination was announced, as someone who would turn back the clock decades on civil rights (a term regrettably still employed against all nominees with a jurisprudence similar in some way to Judge Bork’s).
What we are left with are confirmation votes decided on largely party line votes determined by the nominee’s supposed ideology as opposed to their qualifications, temperament, and integrity. That precedent The Washington Post fears is a current reality. The Post need not fear any "dangerous precedent" to be realized in the future, for that precedent has been a reality for nearly twenty years now. What the Post really needs to fear, and I suspect what it does actually fear, is that Republicans will grow tired of this double-standard and treat the Supreme Court nominees of Democratic presidents in the same churlish manner as Democrats treat the nominees of Republican presidents.
Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.
I would submit that, unfortunately, that "dangerous precedent" has been set, as one-sided as it may be. Republicans continue to follow the historical precedent of voting to confirm the nominee of another party even if they strongly disagree with his/her jurisprudence—so long as that nominee is adequately qualified. The nominations and confirmations of President Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, bear this out.
Democrats on the other hand poisoned the well nearly twenty years ago with the rejection of Reagan appointee Robert Bork. Judge Bork was a legal genius and one of the most qualified and thoughtful Supreme Court nominees in the nation’s history. He had a constitutionalist/originalist record and jurisprudence however which conflicted with the Democrats’ own, often extra-constitutional, jurisprudence. As a result Judge Bork was slandered, nearly the minute his nomination was announced, as someone who would turn back the clock decades on civil rights (a term regrettably still employed against all nominees with a jurisprudence similar in some way to Judge Bork’s).
What we are left with are confirmation votes decided on largely party line votes determined by the nominee’s supposed ideology as opposed to their qualifications, temperament, and integrity. That precedent The Washington Post fears is a current reality. The Post need not fear any "dangerous precedent" to be realized in the future, for that precedent has been a reality for nearly twenty years now. What the Post really needs to fear, and I suspect what it does actually fear, is that Republicans will grow tired of this double-standard and treat the Supreme Court nominees of Democratic presidents in the same churlish manner as Democrats treat the nominees of Republican presidents.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Confirm Judge Alito
As a telling sign of the predicament Senate Democrats are in The Washington Post has endorsed the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Post cites various reservations they have with a Justice Alito—he defers to the elected branches too often, he has read civil rights statutes and precedents too narrowly on occasion, he has an unpromising approach to federalism—but opines that to reject his nomination would create negative "long-term implications" towards the confirmation process.
It is clear, in the Post’s view as well my own, that Judge Alito is clearly qualified for the Supreme Court and falls well within the judicial mainstream, whatever that is. Democratic attempts at smearing the judge have clearly failed—every rational individual recognizes as much.
The only grounds remaining on which to oppose him are purely ideological. As the Post aptly points out however, for a senator to oppose Judge Alito on purely ideological grounds is to "believe there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law—which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law." There is one law and Judge Alito’s tenure on the Third Circuit has demonstrated that he recognizes this.
The president is entitled to his choice for the Court, provided that choice is qualified and respectful of the written law of the United States. Judge Alito is. In two months of public debate and four days of hearings Senate Democrats have failed to establish otherwise.
Barring some unforeseeable development, Judge Alito will deservedly be confirmed. Any futile semblance of opposition or obstructionism Senate Democrats advance will only betray those culpable as the political ideologues we all expected they were.
It is clear, in the Post’s view as well my own, that Judge Alito is clearly qualified for the Supreme Court and falls well within the judicial mainstream, whatever that is. Democratic attempts at smearing the judge have clearly failed—every rational individual recognizes as much.
The only grounds remaining on which to oppose him are purely ideological. As the Post aptly points out however, for a senator to oppose Judge Alito on purely ideological grounds is to "believe there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law—which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law." There is one law and Judge Alito’s tenure on the Third Circuit has demonstrated that he recognizes this.
The president is entitled to his choice for the Court, provided that choice is qualified and respectful of the written law of the United States. Judge Alito is. In two months of public debate and four days of hearings Senate Democrats have failed to establish otherwise.
Barring some unforeseeable development, Judge Alito will deservedly be confirmed. Any futile semblance of opposition or obstructionism Senate Democrats advance will only betray those culpable as the political ideologues we all expected they were.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Pence For Majority Leader
I’ve made my dissatisfaction with Rep. Tom Delay’s tenure as House Majority Leader known, and I am pleased that he will not be re-assuming his leadership duties if and when he settles his legal issues in Texas.
From this point forward House Republicans should resolve themselves to finding a leader who will embody the principles of limited, honest, and accountable government that all Republicans should represent. They have not of late and it is about time they did. For far too long our values have not reflected our actions.
The ideal replacement for Rep. Delay would be, in my estimation, Mike Pence of Indiana. Rep. Pence chairs the Republican Study Committee, devoted to advancing the principles of "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government." He has received an 89% score from Citizens Against Government Waste and The Washington Post has described him as someone who delivers "conservative opinions with the even tones and polite demeanor of his Midwest upbringing."
At a time when the House Republican conference looks and acts increasingly more arrogant and unaccountable, these are the exact kind of traits House Republicans should be looking for in their next leader.
From this point forward House Republicans should resolve themselves to finding a leader who will embody the principles of limited, honest, and accountable government that all Republicans should represent. They have not of late and it is about time they did. For far too long our values have not reflected our actions.
The ideal replacement for Rep. Delay would be, in my estimation, Mike Pence of Indiana. Rep. Pence chairs the Republican Study Committee, devoted to advancing the principles of "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government." He has received an 89% score from Citizens Against Government Waste and The Washington Post has described him as someone who delivers "conservative opinions with the even tones and polite demeanor of his Midwest upbringing."
At a time when the House Republican conference looks and acts increasingly more arrogant and unaccountable, these are the exact kind of traits House Republicans should be looking for in their next leader.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Why We Must Stay & Why We Must Win
Only a few short weeks after urging her caucus to vote against Congressman John Murtha’s plan to withdraw from Iraq, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi turned around and endorsed that plan last week. "We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."
With all due respect to Rep. Pelosi and Congressman Murtha, how in the world would abandoning Iraq at this juncture make America stronger and safer and Iraq more stable? How would admitting defeat in the central front in the war against Islamo-fascism in any way accomplish any of these?
Surrender in Iraq would embolden the bin Ladens and Zarqawis, as well as their radical brethren, to extend their reach far beyond Iraq’s borders. There would be an immediate elevation in operations against the United States throughout the world and an invigorated insurgency within Afghanistan would be one of the most obvious and prominent examples of this.
Iraq itself would immediately degenerate into a haven and base for al-Qaeda to launch operations throughout the region and the world. Iraq’s still faceless and fledgling government would be indisposed to combat this and the country would fall into anarchic chaos.
Moreover, America’s foreign enemies and rivals—China, Russia, North Korea, Iran—are closely surveying our actions in Iraq. If we remain until victory is achieved we will demonstrate a strength and resolve they will be hesitant to challenge in the future. If we leave, the opposite will be true. The United States will look increasingly weak and vulnerable at a time when China and even India are burgeoning and asserting themselves increasingly more on the geopolitical stage.
An exodus from Iraq would also shatter all the progress that has been made, both within Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
Iraqis have turned out by the millions, under the shroud of violence and the threat of death, to elect a government to write a constitution and then to ratify that constitution. In little over a week they will go to the polls for the third time this year to elect the new faces that will makeup Iraq’s new constitutional and democratic government.
The trademarks of a democratic society are already there: a free and vibrant press, an independent judiciary, a strong bill of rights. Roads, hospitals, and schools have been and are currently being built.
The Iraqi military grows stronger and more competent everyday. Iraqi forces fight side by side with our own troops and some are even able to operate independently. In his editorial of last week Sen. Joseph Lieberman pointed out that the "Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on it’s own."
The birth and spread of democracy in Iraq has had repercussions throughout the broader Middle East. Saudi Arabia has held elections at the municipal and provincial levels. Egypt held it’s first multi-party elections earlier this fall. Libya has abandoned it’s nuclear weapons program. Afghanistan has elected a permanent government. Syria has left Lebanon and is increasingly isolated.
None of this progress would have been possible were it not for America’s actions in Iraq, and were America to leave it would all be in jeopardy. Democrats in the region would become isolated. Arabian autocrats and dictators would no longer be under pressure and the prevailing air of democracy would once again be replaced by the stench of despotism and oppression. All momentum would be reversed.
The progress of democracy has only just begun in the Middle East, and there is still much progress to be made. To leave now would set this movement back decades, if not more.
American leftists and their Democratic cohorts in congress often speak of the supposed parallels that exist between Iraq and Vietnam. Well if the United States were to leave Iraq prematurely we would be replicating the same tragedy of Vietnam.
In the twilight of America’s involvement in Vietnam the North Vietnamese, like the insurgency of today, had been mostly defeated. The North’s invasion of the South in 1972, designed to crush public support for the war within America, had been crushed by the South, who had fought bravely with the support of American forces, also like the Iraqi forces of today. On January 23, 1973 the North had even signed an agreement with America ending the war.
However American forces were withdrawn prematurely and congress cut off support for the Southern government. Unable to support themselves, Saigon fell shortly thereafter.
The tragedy of Vietnam was not that nearly sixty thousand Americans died, it was that nearly sixty thousand Americans died for nothing simply because the nation’s political leaders failed to support the people and the government those men had died for the benefit of.
To retreat from Iraq would be to replicate this same tragedy. It would amount to a betrayal of the over two-thousand servicemen and women who have given their lives and the thousands of others who have been injured. These men and women have sacrificed their everything so that Iraq may be free and America may be safer. Should we leave Iraq now they will have died in vain. They will have demonstrated "the last full measure of devotion" for nothing because the country they fought and died for shamefully lacked the courage to honor their sacrifice by finishing the job they had died to carry out.
May we all pray that day never comes, that America will honor her fallen sons and daughters as well as the commitment we have made to the Iraqi people by seeing the task through until the task is done.
We must stay and we must win. The costs of doing otherwise are simply too tragic to bear.
Hat Tip: Victor Davis Hanson, Sen. John Kyl, James Q. Wilson
With all due respect to Rep. Pelosi and Congressman Murtha, how in the world would abandoning Iraq at this juncture make America stronger and safer and Iraq more stable? How would admitting defeat in the central front in the war against Islamo-fascism in any way accomplish any of these?
Surrender in Iraq would embolden the bin Ladens and Zarqawis, as well as their radical brethren, to extend their reach far beyond Iraq’s borders. There would be an immediate elevation in operations against the United States throughout the world and an invigorated insurgency within Afghanistan would be one of the most obvious and prominent examples of this.
Iraq itself would immediately degenerate into a haven and base for al-Qaeda to launch operations throughout the region and the world. Iraq’s still faceless and fledgling government would be indisposed to combat this and the country would fall into anarchic chaos.
Moreover, America’s foreign enemies and rivals—China, Russia, North Korea, Iran—are closely surveying our actions in Iraq. If we remain until victory is achieved we will demonstrate a strength and resolve they will be hesitant to challenge in the future. If we leave, the opposite will be true. The United States will look increasingly weak and vulnerable at a time when China and even India are burgeoning and asserting themselves increasingly more on the geopolitical stage.
An exodus from Iraq would also shatter all the progress that has been made, both within Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
Iraqis have turned out by the millions, under the shroud of violence and the threat of death, to elect a government to write a constitution and then to ratify that constitution. In little over a week they will go to the polls for the third time this year to elect the new faces that will makeup Iraq’s new constitutional and democratic government.
The trademarks of a democratic society are already there: a free and vibrant press, an independent judiciary, a strong bill of rights. Roads, hospitals, and schools have been and are currently being built.
The Iraqi military grows stronger and more competent everyday. Iraqi forces fight side by side with our own troops and some are even able to operate independently. In his editorial of last week Sen. Joseph Lieberman pointed out that the "Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on it’s own."
The birth and spread of democracy in Iraq has had repercussions throughout the broader Middle East. Saudi Arabia has held elections at the municipal and provincial levels. Egypt held it’s first multi-party elections earlier this fall. Libya has abandoned it’s nuclear weapons program. Afghanistan has elected a permanent government. Syria has left Lebanon and is increasingly isolated.
None of this progress would have been possible were it not for America’s actions in Iraq, and were America to leave it would all be in jeopardy. Democrats in the region would become isolated. Arabian autocrats and dictators would no longer be under pressure and the prevailing air of democracy would once again be replaced by the stench of despotism and oppression. All momentum would be reversed.
The progress of democracy has only just begun in the Middle East, and there is still much progress to be made. To leave now would set this movement back decades, if not more.
American leftists and their Democratic cohorts in congress often speak of the supposed parallels that exist between Iraq and Vietnam. Well if the United States were to leave Iraq prematurely we would be replicating the same tragedy of Vietnam.
In the twilight of America’s involvement in Vietnam the North Vietnamese, like the insurgency of today, had been mostly defeated. The North’s invasion of the South in 1972, designed to crush public support for the war within America, had been crushed by the South, who had fought bravely with the support of American forces, also like the Iraqi forces of today. On January 23, 1973 the North had even signed an agreement with America ending the war.
However American forces were withdrawn prematurely and congress cut off support for the Southern government. Unable to support themselves, Saigon fell shortly thereafter.
The tragedy of Vietnam was not that nearly sixty thousand Americans died, it was that nearly sixty thousand Americans died for nothing simply because the nation’s political leaders failed to support the people and the government those men had died for the benefit of.
To retreat from Iraq would be to replicate this same tragedy. It would amount to a betrayal of the over two-thousand servicemen and women who have given their lives and the thousands of others who have been injured. These men and women have sacrificed their everything so that Iraq may be free and America may be safer. Should we leave Iraq now they will have died in vain. They will have demonstrated "the last full measure of devotion" for nothing because the country they fought and died for shamefully lacked the courage to honor their sacrifice by finishing the job they had died to carry out.
May we all pray that day never comes, that America will honor her fallen sons and daughters as well as the commitment we have made to the Iraqi people by seeing the task through until the task is done.
We must stay and we must win. The costs of doing otherwise are simply too tragic to bear.
Hat Tip: Victor Davis Hanson, Sen. John Kyl, James Q. Wilson
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Sen. McCain & the '08 Election
Sen. John McCain is a political rock star. His penchant for speaking his mind regardless of whether he is toeing the party line or not has endeared him to the national media and the American people. Some might call it shooting from the hip while others may describe it as speaking candidly. Either way his straight-talk is something that clearly resonates with and appeals to the American public.
That Sen. McCain is a virtual lock to win the general election in ‘08 should he indeed run is almost beyond dispute, no matter who the Democratic nominee might be. Sen. McCain appeals to people from all sides of the aisle, and if public perception of the U.S. effort in Iraq continues to remain negative (perception and reality are two different entities in this case) Sen. McCain would be the ideal candidate.
Ross Douthat aptly points out that "when Americans sour on a military conflict, they don’t usually elect outspoken doves—they elect politicians with hawkish credentials who insist they’ll bring the war to a successful conclusion." Sen. McCain fits this mold perfectly—his criticism of the post-war management yet steadfast support of the general war effort gives him this. More on this later.
To ever reach the general election however Sen. McCain will need to earn the support of his own party. Though he is loved by those on the left and center, the right views him tepidly. He has frustrated conservatives and Republicans in the past for a host of reasons. He co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in 2002, a bill which raised serious First Amendment Concerns. His leadership in the "Gang of Fourteen" deal last spring angered many conservatives anxious to end senate filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.
To be fair, the compromise has led to the up-or-down vote and eventual confirmation of many qualified jurists. Nominees such as Priscilla Owen, Janice Rodgers Brown, and William Pryor, having been previously filibustered, now sit on the bench as a result of the compromise.
To be the nominee in ‘08 Sen. McCain will need Republican primary voters to vote strategically. If Republicans fear the Democratic nominee will win the general election Sen. McCain’s stock will soar. The only question is if Republicans will care more about philosophical and ideological purity or winning.
Sen. McCain’s main objective from this point forward, if he is indeed running, is to diminish as much as possible this dilemma. In other words, the less Republicans feel like they are compromising philosophical values for political strategy if and when they cast their vote for Sen. McCain the better. He needs conservatives to be comfortable with him, to view him as more than just the candidate of last resort, as one of them.
If the senator fails to become this he will be a servant of circumstance, his fate resting in areas beyond his control. He will need several dominos to fall into place. The country would have to be dissatisfied with Republicans and at least hospitable to Democrats(the populace is dissatisfied with both parties right now). The GOP field will have to be weak, or perceived to be, and one candidate will have to be steam-rolling through the Democratic primaries, one deemed unstoppable by national Republicans. The national mood will have to be dour and the electoral field conducive to a Democratic victory—i.e. a sluggish economy, trouble in Iraq, Bush fatigue, etc.
The dominos may very well fall into place perfectly like this, but they just as easily may not. Basing one’s presidential aspirations on a series of if’s is certainly not the way to go.
I’m sure Sen. McCain understands this. Just last week he told AP that the Republican party must highlight "progress in Iraq" as well as develop a "comprehensive energy package" and "stop this profligate spending"---words conservatives and Republicans love to hear.
National Republicans and conservatives are frustrated with Washington Republicans as much as the broader American public, especially over shameless federal spending. Come ‘08 they will be looking for the candidate who will promise fiscal discipline and victory in Iraq, as well as nominate constitutionalists to the bench and shore up the Mexican border.
To gain Republicans’ confidence and their nomination though will require much more than paid lip service on these issues. Sen. McCain’s record in the senate will count just as much as his stump speech rhetoric.
On the issue of fiscal responsibility Sen. McCain does have some credibility. He supported a recent amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma that would have transferred federal funds from the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska to more important projects along the Gulf Coast. In addition, Sen. McCain has received an 88% rating from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.
His obstinance on cutting taxes could prove to be a sticking point however. He has chastised the president and Republicans for cutting taxes in times of war, an unpopular position within a pro-tax cut, pro-growth party. Whether or not he plans to cut taxes or even keep them at current levels is a question that is sure to pop up often on the primary campaign trail.
No one can question Sen. McCain's determination and willingness to stay in Iraq for as long as necessary. He has criticized some of the administration’s post-war management it is true, but his support for the general effort has never wavered and cannot be questioned:
Sen. McCain’s judicial philosophy and the type of judge he would look for if he were president is unclear. For obvious reasons it is impossible to tell what kind of judge he would nominate until he is actually in a position to do so. This issue too will pop up frequently throughout the primaries.
Another liability for the senator may be his border proposal. Republicans are demanding stricter security along the U.S.-Mexican border, the senator’s proposal focuses more on dealing with illegal aliens already in the country as opposed to preventing more from entering. I endorsed the senator’s idea, but concerns that it doesn’t adequately address border security are legitimate.
Whether Sen. McCain is able to overcome this liability and others come Iowa and New Hampshire is the million dollar question. He would be a strong and almost unbeatable general election candidate—any Democrat would be hard-pressed to overcome his across-the-aisle appeal and sheer integrity.
Getting his fellow Republicans to give him their nomination will be the test. Due to growing public concern over Iraq and perceived Republican corruption in congress many analysts believe Sen. McCain’s stock is rising among conservatives and Republicans. Maybe, maybe not. If so, and it is these reasons which are motivating a change of heart, than it is a result of the strategic motivations I highlighted earlier. He is only the pragmatic political choice, not the one whom inspires or captures the imaginations of Republicans.
Time will tell if he can change this.
Extra Hat Tip: Tom Bevan
That Sen. McCain is a virtual lock to win the general election in ‘08 should he indeed run is almost beyond dispute, no matter who the Democratic nominee might be. Sen. McCain appeals to people from all sides of the aisle, and if public perception of the U.S. effort in Iraq continues to remain negative (perception and reality are two different entities in this case) Sen. McCain would be the ideal candidate.
Ross Douthat aptly points out that "when Americans sour on a military conflict, they don’t usually elect outspoken doves—they elect politicians with hawkish credentials who insist they’ll bring the war to a successful conclusion." Sen. McCain fits this mold perfectly—his criticism of the post-war management yet steadfast support of the general war effort gives him this. More on this later.
To ever reach the general election however Sen. McCain will need to earn the support of his own party. Though he is loved by those on the left and center, the right views him tepidly. He has frustrated conservatives and Republicans in the past for a host of reasons. He co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in 2002, a bill which raised serious First Amendment Concerns. His leadership in the "Gang of Fourteen" deal last spring angered many conservatives anxious to end senate filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.
To be fair, the compromise has led to the up-or-down vote and eventual confirmation of many qualified jurists. Nominees such as Priscilla Owen, Janice Rodgers Brown, and William Pryor, having been previously filibustered, now sit on the bench as a result of the compromise.
To be the nominee in ‘08 Sen. McCain will need Republican primary voters to vote strategically. If Republicans fear the Democratic nominee will win the general election Sen. McCain’s stock will soar. The only question is if Republicans will care more about philosophical and ideological purity or winning.
Sen. McCain’s main objective from this point forward, if he is indeed running, is to diminish as much as possible this dilemma. In other words, the less Republicans feel like they are compromising philosophical values for political strategy if and when they cast their vote for Sen. McCain the better. He needs conservatives to be comfortable with him, to view him as more than just the candidate of last resort, as one of them.
If the senator fails to become this he will be a servant of circumstance, his fate resting in areas beyond his control. He will need several dominos to fall into place. The country would have to be dissatisfied with Republicans and at least hospitable to Democrats(the populace is dissatisfied with both parties right now). The GOP field will have to be weak, or perceived to be, and one candidate will have to be steam-rolling through the Democratic primaries, one deemed unstoppable by national Republicans. The national mood will have to be dour and the electoral field conducive to a Democratic victory—i.e. a sluggish economy, trouble in Iraq, Bush fatigue, etc.
The dominos may very well fall into place perfectly like this, but they just as easily may not. Basing one’s presidential aspirations on a series of if’s is certainly not the way to go.
I’m sure Sen. McCain understands this. Just last week he told AP that the Republican party must highlight "progress in Iraq" as well as develop a "comprehensive energy package" and "stop this profligate spending"---words conservatives and Republicans love to hear.
National Republicans and conservatives are frustrated with Washington Republicans as much as the broader American public, especially over shameless federal spending. Come ‘08 they will be looking for the candidate who will promise fiscal discipline and victory in Iraq, as well as nominate constitutionalists to the bench and shore up the Mexican border.
To gain Republicans’ confidence and their nomination though will require much more than paid lip service on these issues. Sen. McCain’s record in the senate will count just as much as his stump speech rhetoric.
On the issue of fiscal responsibility Sen. McCain does have some credibility. He supported a recent amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma that would have transferred federal funds from the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska to more important projects along the Gulf Coast. In addition, Sen. McCain has received an 88% rating from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.
His obstinance on cutting taxes could prove to be a sticking point however. He has chastised the president and Republicans for cutting taxes in times of war, an unpopular position within a pro-tax cut, pro-growth party. Whether or not he plans to cut taxes or even keep them at current levels is a question that is sure to pop up often on the primary campaign trail.
No one can question Sen. McCain's determination and willingness to stay in Iraq for as long as necessary. He has criticized some of the administration’s post-war management it is true, but his support for the general effort has never wavered and cannot be questioned:
"America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission. Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory."Critiquing decisions made and strategy employed in Iraq’s post-war management is an entirely legitimate and healthy exercise. I highly doubt conservatives would find Sen. McCain’s call for more troops over there objectionable anyway.
Sen. McCain’s judicial philosophy and the type of judge he would look for if he were president is unclear. For obvious reasons it is impossible to tell what kind of judge he would nominate until he is actually in a position to do so. This issue too will pop up frequently throughout the primaries.
Another liability for the senator may be his border proposal. Republicans are demanding stricter security along the U.S.-Mexican border, the senator’s proposal focuses more on dealing with illegal aliens already in the country as opposed to preventing more from entering. I endorsed the senator’s idea, but concerns that it doesn’t adequately address border security are legitimate.
Whether Sen. McCain is able to overcome this liability and others come Iowa and New Hampshire is the million dollar question. He would be a strong and almost unbeatable general election candidate—any Democrat would be hard-pressed to overcome his across-the-aisle appeal and sheer integrity.
Getting his fellow Republicans to give him their nomination will be the test. Due to growing public concern over Iraq and perceived Republican corruption in congress many analysts believe Sen. McCain’s stock is rising among conservatives and Republicans. Maybe, maybe not. If so, and it is these reasons which are motivating a change of heart, than it is a result of the strategic motivations I highlighted earlier. He is only the pragmatic political choice, not the one whom inspires or captures the imaginations of Republicans.
Time will tell if he can change this.
Extra Hat Tip: Tom Bevan
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
An Added Focus
The president delivered a speech yesterday regarding illegal immigration and the U.S.-Mexican border. What he offered was not a redaction of his previous plan but a new focus to precede that plan.
Conservatives had opposed his initial plan of creating a guest-worker program not because they necessarily disagreed with the concept, but because the president’s plan ended there. Absent was any mention of shoring up the border to prevent illegal aliens from coming into the country in the first place. A guest-worker program may be the way to go, but before you can create new laws and programs you must enforce the existing ones, making sure that we do a better job of preventing illegal aliens from cutting in line in front of those who come here legally.
Moreover, a guest-worker program does little if anything to address the grave national security threat that arises from having poor border enforcement. A guest-worker program is not going to stop a member of al-Qaeda or someone else interested in harming the United States from crossing the border illegally and undocumented. Only a strong border enforcement will.
Hopefully the president now understands this and is willing to push for it with congress.
Conservatives had opposed his initial plan of creating a guest-worker program not because they necessarily disagreed with the concept, but because the president’s plan ended there. Absent was any mention of shoring up the border to prevent illegal aliens from coming into the country in the first place. A guest-worker program may be the way to go, but before you can create new laws and programs you must enforce the existing ones, making sure that we do a better job of preventing illegal aliens from cutting in line in front of those who come here legally.
Moreover, a guest-worker program does little if anything to address the grave national security threat that arises from having poor border enforcement. A guest-worker program is not going to stop a member of al-Qaeda or someone else interested in harming the United States from crossing the border illegally and undocumented. Only a strong border enforcement will.
Hopefully the president now understands this and is willing to push for it with congress.
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Alito Application
There has been a small controversy over comments Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito made in a 1985 application for a position in the Reagan Justice Department, a memo in which he essentially said that he was proud to have advocated legal positions which held that the constitution did not permit racial quotas or protect abortion. Senate Democrats were naturally concerned over such a revelation and quizzed Judge Alito as a result. His reported response was that he wrote those comments twenty years ago while applying for a legal advocacy position in a conservative administration. Moreover, he pointed out that he is a judge now and the personal views he expressed then carry no relevance in his current role as a judge.
This response is entirely legitimate and correct, and Democrats would do well to remember the difference between advocate and judge as the confirmation process progresses. All of this aside however Judge Alito was entirely correct in ‘85—the constitution does not protect abortion. What it does protect is the right for every state and the people therein to resolve the issue of abortion, and most other issues for that matter, through the democratic process. The constitution does not make substantive judgments on issues, it provides the framework and protects the right of the people to make the substantive judgments themselves.
Democrats will undoubtedly try to hold the fact that Judge Alito recognizes this against him. To counteract this a sustained and vigorous rebuttal from conservatives will be required.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
This response is entirely legitimate and correct, and Democrats would do well to remember the difference between advocate and judge as the confirmation process progresses. All of this aside however Judge Alito was entirely correct in ‘85—the constitution does not protect abortion. What it does protect is the right for every state and the people therein to resolve the issue of abortion, and most other issues for that matter, through the democratic process. The constitution does not make substantive judgments on issues, it provides the framework and protects the right of the people to make the substantive judgments themselves.
Democrats will undoubtedly try to hold the fact that Judge Alito recognizes this against him. To counteract this a sustained and vigorous rebuttal from conservatives will be required.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
Friday, November 11, 2005
Veterans' Day
A warm thank you to all of our veterans who have worn the uniform and fought under the American flag. I cannot possibly begin to articulate all the gratitude I and every other patriotic American feel on this day. But I can say that we as a nation are all completely aware of the fact that if it weren’t for the brave there would be no land of the free. Thank you once again and God Bless each and every one of you.
The Soldier
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to abuse and burn the flag.
By Charles M. Province
The Soldier
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to abuse and burn the flag.
By Charles M. Province
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The '05 Elections
The returns are in from yesterday’s election and everything seems to have gone as expected. Mayor Bloomberg won big in Gotham, Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey, Kaine won in the Old Dominion state, and the constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in Texas.
Presumably Democrats will present the gubernatorial victories of Corzine and Kaine as harbingers of more Democratic victories to come in ‘06. Perhaps they will be right, but I hardly see how these results foreshadow such an outcome. Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey because he is an established Democrat in an established Democratic state. Kaine was able to ride the coat-tails of the ever-popular current governor, Mark Warner, whom Kaine served under as lieutenant governor the past four years. Moreover, these victories were simple holds, not pick-ups. Democrats control no more state houses today than they did yesterday.
It is entirely possible that Democrats will enjoy substantial gains in next year’s mid-terms. Republicans are, for various reasons, certainly ripe for defeat. They spend too much, they haven’t addressed the border, we have heard very little about making the tax cuts permanent, and it seems to be business as usual in Washington, which Republicans were supposed to change when they were given control of congress in ‘94.
For the Democrats to capitalize on this however they will need to find some strong leadership and an agenda palatable to the American people. They don’t have either right now, and in fact are just as unpopular as Republicans are. All the Democrats have to offer now is opposition and outright hatred for Republicans and President Bush. That is nothing, and as the Democrats have learned in the past two elections you can’t beat something with nothing. The makeup of congress will change very little unless Democrats correct this.
Presumably Democrats will present the gubernatorial victories of Corzine and Kaine as harbingers of more Democratic victories to come in ‘06. Perhaps they will be right, but I hardly see how these results foreshadow such an outcome. Sen. Corzine won in New Jersey because he is an established Democrat in an established Democratic state. Kaine was able to ride the coat-tails of the ever-popular current governor, Mark Warner, whom Kaine served under as lieutenant governor the past four years. Moreover, these victories were simple holds, not pick-ups. Democrats control no more state houses today than they did yesterday.
It is entirely possible that Democrats will enjoy substantial gains in next year’s mid-terms. Republicans are, for various reasons, certainly ripe for defeat. They spend too much, they haven’t addressed the border, we have heard very little about making the tax cuts permanent, and it seems to be business as usual in Washington, which Republicans were supposed to change when they were given control of congress in ‘94.
For the Democrats to capitalize on this however they will need to find some strong leadership and an agenda palatable to the American people. They don’t have either right now, and in fact are just as unpopular as Republicans are. All the Democrats have to offer now is opposition and outright hatred for Republicans and President Bush. That is nothing, and as the Democrats have learned in the past two elections you can’t beat something with nothing. The makeup of congress will change very little unless Democrats correct this.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Twenty-Five Years Ago
It was only twenty-five years ago today that America picked itself up from the ashes and sent Ronald Reagan to the White House. As a result the Cold War has been won, taxes are lower, and America believes in itself once again.
Good But Not Good Enough
The Senate took a step in the right direction yesterday by passing a spending reduction bill amounting to $36 billion. It was only a step however, and a very small step at that. Compared to the sheer size of the federal budget yesterday's cuts were fairly small, and if not followed by further cuts in the future will do little to advance fiscal responsibility within the federal government.
Moreover, even in a bill designed to cut spending Washington lawmakers couldn’t help but throw in a few token pieces of pork. For example, the bill provides $3 billion in federal funds to "subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts." Seriously. The bill may reduce $36 billion in federal spending but in total it introduces other new spending totaling $35 billion. It has gotten so pathetic that even when congress sets out to cut spending it only ends up finding new ways to spend more.
Slight cuts are certainly welcome, but federal spending is still out of control and cutting bits and pieces of spending here and there only to offset those cuts with increased spending elsewhere is going to do very little to solve the federal government’s fiscal challenges. What is needed is a comprehensive budget-reduction effort that will redo and reduce the federal budget from top to bottom. Republicans have been in the majority for over eleven years now and the fact that this has not been accomplished yet should shame every Republican lawmaker into action; serious action that goes much farther than the Senate went yesterday.
Moreover, even in a bill designed to cut spending Washington lawmakers couldn’t help but throw in a few token pieces of pork. For example, the bill provides $3 billion in federal funds to "subsidize television converter boxes for an upcoming changeover to digital broadcasts." Seriously. The bill may reduce $36 billion in federal spending but in total it introduces other new spending totaling $35 billion. It has gotten so pathetic that even when congress sets out to cut spending it only ends up finding new ways to spend more.
Slight cuts are certainly welcome, but federal spending is still out of control and cutting bits and pieces of spending here and there only to offset those cuts with increased spending elsewhere is going to do very little to solve the federal government’s fiscal challenges. What is needed is a comprehensive budget-reduction effort that will redo and reduce the federal budget from top to bottom. Republicans have been in the majority for over eleven years now and the fact that this has not been accomplished yet should shame every Republican lawmaker into action; serious action that goes much farther than the Senate went yesterday.
Monday, October 31, 2005
That Didn't Take Long...
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) stated in an interview today on MSNBC at around 12:25 P.T. that Judge Alito would, and I paraphrase, force a woman to consult her husband before receiving an abortion even if she feared him. Sen. Boxer was of course referring to Judge Alito’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Either willfully or out of ignorance, Sen. Boxer completely distorted not only Judge Alito’s opinion but the Pennsylvania law in question in the case. As Patterico pointed out yesterday in his review of Judge Alito’s dissent, the law in question did not force a married woman to consult her husband if she "ha[d] reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of injury upon her." Judge Alito acknowledged and cited this in his dissent. Further, all that was required was the woman’s uncorroborated assertion to this effect for her to be able to avoid the requirement. Quite the opposite of Sen. Boxer’s false statement.
Judge Alito’s nomination is only hours old and already Senate Democrats are not only distorting the truth but spreading lies. Unfortunately, Sen. Boxer’s statement is likely only a foretaste of the many distortions to come from her and members of her caucus throughout the nomination process. These tactics do the nominee, the process, the judiciary, and the nation a great disservice and hopefully enough senators from both sides will see fit to rise above them.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
Either willfully or out of ignorance, Sen. Boxer completely distorted not only Judge Alito’s opinion but the Pennsylvania law in question in the case. As Patterico pointed out yesterday in his review of Judge Alito’s dissent, the law in question did not force a married woman to consult her husband if she "ha[d] reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of injury upon her." Judge Alito acknowledged and cited this in his dissent. Further, all that was required was the woman’s uncorroborated assertion to this effect for her to be able to avoid the requirement. Quite the opposite of Sen. Boxer’s false statement.
Judge Alito’s nomination is only hours old and already Senate Democrats are not only distorting the truth but spreading lies. Unfortunately, Sen. Boxer’s statement is likely only a foretaste of the many distortions to come from her and members of her caucus throughout the nomination process. These tactics do the nominee, the process, the judiciary, and the nation a great disservice and hopefully enough senators from both sides will see fit to rise above them.
Cross-posted @ Respectfully Republican
Announcement Today?
The Washington Post is reporting that the president will likely announce his next Supreme Court nominee today, October 31. The possible nominees are Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit, Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit. Do not be surprised however if the nominee is someone whose name has not been circulating through speculative circles.
If you had asked me who my favorite would have been yesterday I would have told you Judge Luttig with Judge Alito as a close second. Erick Erickson has commented however that there are concerns within some circles that Judge Luttig might possibly "grow in office", the infamous description the media uses for judges and politicians who have grown more liberal and less conservative while in office. I was surprised to learn this; Judge Luttig has had an extensive tenure on the federal bench with a consistent originalist/textualist record. Since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement last July I had favored Judge Luttig precisely because of the assumption that he was the least likely to change his spots if he were to become Justice Luttig.
If however there are legitimate concerns that Judge Luttig might indeed change over time once on the Court than Judge Alito should be the choice, as indications are that he very well might be. Judge Alito is a jurist of the deepest humility and knowledge of the constitution and his practice of judicial restraint is exactly the type of jurisprudence the Supreme Court sorely lacks at the moment.
Irregardless, the three possible nominees all have distinguished records on the bench and I'm sure all three will garner the widespread support of national conservatives that the Miers nomination failed to. Though there is little doubt that Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against the nominee, whomever it is (they would have done that to Ms. Miers as well if conservatives hadn’t done their jobs for them), I'll hold off on commenting on the political dynamics of the nomination and confirmation process until the actual nominee is announced. I’ll simply say that any one of the three would be an excellent choice and will attract the type of overwhelming conservative support requisite in getting that nominee confirmed and on the Supreme Court.
If you had asked me who my favorite would have been yesterday I would have told you Judge Luttig with Judge Alito as a close second. Erick Erickson has commented however that there are concerns within some circles that Judge Luttig might possibly "grow in office", the infamous description the media uses for judges and politicians who have grown more liberal and less conservative while in office. I was surprised to learn this; Judge Luttig has had an extensive tenure on the federal bench with a consistent originalist/textualist record. Since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement last July I had favored Judge Luttig precisely because of the assumption that he was the least likely to change his spots if he were to become Justice Luttig.
If however there are legitimate concerns that Judge Luttig might indeed change over time once on the Court than Judge Alito should be the choice, as indications are that he very well might be. Judge Alito is a jurist of the deepest humility and knowledge of the constitution and his practice of judicial restraint is exactly the type of jurisprudence the Supreme Court sorely lacks at the moment.
Irregardless, the three possible nominees all have distinguished records on the bench and I'm sure all three will garner the widespread support of national conservatives that the Miers nomination failed to. Though there is little doubt that Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail against the nominee, whomever it is (they would have done that to Ms. Miers as well if conservatives hadn’t done their jobs for them), I'll hold off on commenting on the political dynamics of the nomination and confirmation process until the actual nominee is announced. I’ll simply say that any one of the three would be an excellent choice and will attract the type of overwhelming conservative support requisite in getting that nominee confirmed and on the Supreme Court.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Moving Forward
The balance of the conservative movement has gotten it’s way and the Miers nomination is a thing of the past. I’ve already shared my thoughts on the subject, in regards to both conservative reaction to and treatment of her and the White House’s handling of her nomination. In the interest of brevity I’ll avoid any repetition of these views and simply say that though I disagreed with many of my fellow conservatives’ opposition to her I hope we can now move forward and create the impetus and momentum needed to accomplish all the aspects of our agenda that remain unaccomplished.
There is still much to be done. Federal spending is out of control and substantial cuts are needed. The U.S.-Mexican border has been neglected for far too long and the border problem is in dire need of attention. The tax-code is too complex and is a burden on the economy. At the very least the code should be dramatically simplified.
The same goes for Social Security, which will be in serious trouble in the not too distant future. To help alleviate the looming crisis congress should stop spending the annual surplus and return the money in the form of personal savings accounts back to whom it belongs—the people. Though the accounts won’t look at all like those the president proposed they will go a long ways towards permanently fixing Social Security once and for all.
None of this is possible however without national conservatives supporting the president and pressuring their representatives in congress to get things done. The Miers debacle was a bitter and divisive affair and now that it is over we should all put the past month or so behind us and move forward. Too much still needs to be done to dwell on any hurt feelings or old scars; it’s time to let bygones be bygones and focus on the next nomination and the yet to be enacted Bush agenda.
NOTE: Indications are that the next nominee might be Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit or Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. The internet chatter has been leaning in Alito’s direction. Either man would be a great choice and a nominee whom conservatives could coalesce around.
Cross-Posted @ Respectfully Republican
There is still much to be done. Federal spending is out of control and substantial cuts are needed. The U.S.-Mexican border has been neglected for far too long and the border problem is in dire need of attention. The tax-code is too complex and is a burden on the economy. At the very least the code should be dramatically simplified.
The same goes for Social Security, which will be in serious trouble in the not too distant future. To help alleviate the looming crisis congress should stop spending the annual surplus and return the money in the form of personal savings accounts back to whom it belongs—the people. Though the accounts won’t look at all like those the president proposed they will go a long ways towards permanently fixing Social Security once and for all.
None of this is possible however without national conservatives supporting the president and pressuring their representatives in congress to get things done. The Miers debacle was a bitter and divisive affair and now that it is over we should all put the past month or so behind us and move forward. Too much still needs to be done to dwell on any hurt feelings or old scars; it’s time to let bygones be bygones and focus on the next nomination and the yet to be enacted Bush agenda.
NOTE: Indications are that the next nominee might be Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit or Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. The internet chatter has been leaning in Alito’s direction. Either man would be a great choice and a nominee whom conservatives could coalesce around.
Cross-Posted @ Respectfully Republican
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Straight From CENTCOM
I received an e-mail from First Lieutenant Brian Anderson of U.S. Central Command today asking me to link to a CENTCOM press release regarding the story being put out about bodies being burned in Afghanistan. I'll let the press release speak for itself but Lt. Anderson made it clear in the e-mail that CENTCOM does not condone such activity. Here is the link to the press release:
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051071.txt
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20051071.txt
A Pox On Both Your Houses
Blogging on Redstate.org in regards to the Miers nomination Pejman Yousefzadeh emphatically stated that "the White House has thoroughly botched the mechanics of her [Ms. Mier’s] nomination". This sentiment is widely held throughout the country and in many ways it is correct.
The White House’s attempts at propping up the nominee have been weak and ineffective. We have heard little, if anything about Ms. Mier’s work in the White House the past four and a half years, only the constant recitation of some of her firsts in Texas and the fact that she is a devout evangelical Christian. All interesting facts to know but otherwise irrelevant to her judicial temperament or ability.
It has also slipped out that Ms. Miers really wasn’t the first choice but the replacement for the nominee who opted out at the last minute. Such a revelation can work in no way except to the detriment of Ms. Miers confirmation prospects and her credibility should she be confirmed. The last thing she needs through this whole ordeal is the label of "second choice" hanging over her head like a dark storm cloud.
Equally at fault though have been national conservatives. They have opposed Ms. Miers nomination from the start, rising in righteous indignation with the certainty that they have once again been betrayed by a Republican president. In fact, the tone and volume of conservative reaction has been such that one can sense conservatives were just waiting to be betrayed and are now indulging themselves in self-pity now that their expectations have come to fruition.
This reaction has been knee-jerk. Maybe Ms. Miers will be a terrible disappointment; another O’Connor perhaps. But at the very least she deserves a chance to prove herself, both in her hearings and once she reaches the Supreme Court. In the interest of fairness conservatives should cease this gnashing of teeth for at least five minutes and wait to pass judgment.
The White House has done Ms. Miers few favors since her nomination, but the conservative movement has convicted her a failure in the court of public opinion without the benefit of a fair trial. Ms. Miers has been done a great inservice by all involved in the process.
The White House’s attempts at propping up the nominee have been weak and ineffective. We have heard little, if anything about Ms. Mier’s work in the White House the past four and a half years, only the constant recitation of some of her firsts in Texas and the fact that she is a devout evangelical Christian. All interesting facts to know but otherwise irrelevant to her judicial temperament or ability.
It has also slipped out that Ms. Miers really wasn’t the first choice but the replacement for the nominee who opted out at the last minute. Such a revelation can work in no way except to the detriment of Ms. Miers confirmation prospects and her credibility should she be confirmed. The last thing she needs through this whole ordeal is the label of "second choice" hanging over her head like a dark storm cloud.
Equally at fault though have been national conservatives. They have opposed Ms. Miers nomination from the start, rising in righteous indignation with the certainty that they have once again been betrayed by a Republican president. In fact, the tone and volume of conservative reaction has been such that one can sense conservatives were just waiting to be betrayed and are now indulging themselves in self-pity now that their expectations have come to fruition.
This reaction has been knee-jerk. Maybe Ms. Miers will be a terrible disappointment; another O’Connor perhaps. But at the very least she deserves a chance to prove herself, both in her hearings and once she reaches the Supreme Court. In the interest of fairness conservatives should cease this gnashing of teeth for at least five minutes and wait to pass judgment.
The White House has done Ms. Miers few favors since her nomination, but the conservative movement has convicted her a failure in the court of public opinion without the benefit of a fair trial. Ms. Miers has been done a great inservice by all involved in the process.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Iraq Votes
The vote seemed to go fairly smoothly today. There was some scattered instances of violence but not nearly as much as was previously expected or feared, much like the election last January. Turnout was high as well, estimated at or a little over sixty percent.
Indications are that turnout was also high within the Sunni provinces, not at all like last January’s election. Some might fear that high Sunni turnout bodes poorly for the constitution’s chances of ratification. I tend to agree with John Hinderaker of Powerline however that the constitution will be ratified regardless and that Sunni participation in the democratic process should be welcomed and viewed as a positive development. Remember, Sunnis were boycotting the process not too long ago; Sunni involvement in Iraq’s infant democracy is a sign of progress. They now realize the train is leaving the station and they better get on board; good news for Iraq and bad news for the terrorist "insurgency" within that country.
Indications are that turnout was also high within the Sunni provinces, not at all like last January’s election. Some might fear that high Sunni turnout bodes poorly for the constitution’s chances of ratification. I tend to agree with John Hinderaker of Powerline however that the constitution will be ratified regardless and that Sunni participation in the democratic process should be welcomed and viewed as a positive development. Remember, Sunnis were boycotting the process not too long ago; Sunni involvement in Iraq’s infant democracy is a sign of progress. They now realize the train is leaving the station and they better get on board; good news for Iraq and bad news for the terrorist "insurgency" within that country.
Friday, October 14, 2005
History Repeats Itself
Mort Kondracke pointed out during the panel portion of today’s Special Report W/ Brit Hume that the constitution Iraqis will go to the polls to ratify tomorrow is, in a way, incomplete. The negotiation process has been tricky and contentious between Iraq’s sectarian groups and only this week was a compromise reached between the Sunnis and the Shias and Kurds. Still, a few of the most tricky issues were reportedly put off to the side for the time being, with promises that these issues will be dealt with through the amendment process should the constitution be ratified and the permanent parliament comes into session. In this regard Mr. Kondracke is correct.
It deserves mentioning however that the United States went through a nearly identical situation when writing and ratifying our constitution. A handful of states were wary of the strong centralized government that a new constitution would install. The concern was that such a government would go on to violate individual rights in the same manner King George III and parliament had done prior to the revolutionary war. To placate these concerns leading proponents of the constitution promised that a bill of rights would be ratified in the first congress in return for those states’ support.
So yes the Iraqi constitution is "incomplete", but so was ours. The important thing is that Iraq’s varying factions have reached consensus and agreement and Iraq is on the cusp of ratifying a constitution that will create a permanent democratic government.
It deserves mentioning however that the United States went through a nearly identical situation when writing and ratifying our constitution. A handful of states were wary of the strong centralized government that a new constitution would install. The concern was that such a government would go on to violate individual rights in the same manner King George III and parliament had done prior to the revolutionary war. To placate these concerns leading proponents of the constitution promised that a bill of rights would be ratified in the first congress in return for those states’ support.
So yes the Iraqi constitution is "incomplete", but so was ours. The important thing is that Iraq’s varying factions have reached consensus and agreement and Iraq is on the cusp of ratifying a constitution that will create a permanent democratic government.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Gonzales v. Oregon
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, sure to be one of the most important cases the new Roberts Court will deal with in it’s first term. The question presented is whether the federal government has the authority to preempt the state of Oregon’s assisted suicide law under the Controlled Substances Act. More specifically, can the Justice Department prevent physicians within the state of Oregon from prescribing certain drugs banned under the CSA to terminally ill patients?
The short and simple answer to this question is no, the federal government cannot preempt the Oregon law. Under the Tenth Amendment Oregon can pass and enforce just about any law that it and it’s residents desire.
This does not mean however that the state action in this case is immune from federal influence or interference. If a doctor prescribes a drug that is banned under the CSA, and is or has been in the interstate commercial market, the federal government has the power to step in and prevent that drug from being prescribed and used. In other words, the federal government may act so long as it’s action is a legitimate and valid means in achieving it’s legitimate, constitutionally-authorized end, which in this regard is regulating interstate commerce.
The federal government’s reach and authority ends here though. If the Oregon law in question were to permit doctors to prescribe non-CSA banned drugs and/or those drugs are not tangibly interstate nor commercial----in terms of their cultivation, transport, and consumption----than the federal government has no reach or authority in the matter. Put simply, the federal government cannot substantively prevent Oregon from legalizing doctor-assisted suicide within the state. What it can do, under authority of the Commerce Clause, is prohibit certain drugs from being prescribed for the purpose of assisted-suicide provided those drugs are a tangible aspect of the interstate, commercial drug market. Absent this, the federal government has no leg on which to stand.
The short and simple answer to this question is no, the federal government cannot preempt the Oregon law. Under the Tenth Amendment Oregon can pass and enforce just about any law that it and it’s residents desire.
This does not mean however that the state action in this case is immune from federal influence or interference. If a doctor prescribes a drug that is banned under the CSA, and is or has been in the interstate commercial market, the federal government has the power to step in and prevent that drug from being prescribed and used. In other words, the federal government may act so long as it’s action is a legitimate and valid means in achieving it’s legitimate, constitutionally-authorized end, which in this regard is regulating interstate commerce.
The federal government’s reach and authority ends here though. If the Oregon law in question were to permit doctors to prescribe non-CSA banned drugs and/or those drugs are not tangibly interstate nor commercial----in terms of their cultivation, transport, and consumption----than the federal government has no reach or authority in the matter. Put simply, the federal government cannot substantively prevent Oregon from legalizing doctor-assisted suicide within the state. What it can do, under authority of the Commerce Clause, is prohibit certain drugs from being prescribed for the purpose of assisted-suicide provided those drugs are a tangible aspect of the interstate, commercial drug market. Absent this, the federal government has no leg on which to stand.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Miers Nomination
Conservatives are panicking. They are in a furious rage. The president promised them a constitutionalist and judges who would never legislate from the bench and he gave them.....Harriet Miers. The reaction to the president’s announcement this morning was fast and furious from the right. Redstate.org opined that Ms. Miers is, as far as they know, "unqualified for the position." Paul Mirengoff of Powerline asserts that Miers would not have been nominated were it not "for her gender" and her "status as a Bush crony". William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, goes so far as to say he is "disappointed", "depressed", and "demoralized" with the Miers selection. The mood within the comment sections of conservative blogs is much harsher.
At first I was not all that enthusiastic about the pick either. As most conservatives, I was enchanted by the prospect of a Luttig, Alito, or Garza joining Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts on the high court. Harriet Miers would not have been my first choice, not even close. But this does not mean that Ms. Miers is not a good choice, or quite possibly, a great choice. Conservatives would do well to desist the hysterical gnashing of teeth they are currently indulging in and keep a few things in mind.
First, the president has not broken his promise to nominate judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas----he has never made such a promise. The president said that Justices Scalia and Thomas were those whom he most admired. What he promised, throughout his presidency and his reelection campaign, was that he will nominate judges who respect the law and will not legislate from the bench.
Ms. Miers is not unqualified. The fact that she has never served on a bench, state or federal, or is not a prominent legal scholar in no way disqualifies her from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has spent her life in private practice, she has served as president of the Texas state bar, and has served in the Bush Administration in it’s entirety. If Ms. Miers’ credentials do not suffice as proper qualification than neither did those of William Rehnquist, the late and great Chief Justice whom all conservatives agree was one of the nation’s greatest.
Neither is Ms. Miers a Bush "crony". The fact that she is a close associate and subordinate of the president should comfort conservatives tepid over her lack of a paper trail or discernible judicial philosophy. The president wants a justice who will exercise judicial restraint and remain faithful to the constitution just as much as anybody. His lower court appointments bear this out. After reviewing all possible candidates his personal association with Ms. Miers convinced him that she will meet this criterion. The president came to the same conclusion in a similar circumstance when selecting his running mate and vice president. Does any conservative dispute his judgment in that instance?
The president knows Harriet Miers, he trusts her with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In turn, I trust the president; he has never given me, nor any other conservative reason not to.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker, Patrick Ruffini
UPDATE (4:13 P.M. 10/4/05): Read this.
At first I was not all that enthusiastic about the pick either. As most conservatives, I was enchanted by the prospect of a Luttig, Alito, or Garza joining Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts on the high court. Harriet Miers would not have been my first choice, not even close. But this does not mean that Ms. Miers is not a good choice, or quite possibly, a great choice. Conservatives would do well to desist the hysterical gnashing of teeth they are currently indulging in and keep a few things in mind.
First, the president has not broken his promise to nominate judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas----he has never made such a promise. The president said that Justices Scalia and Thomas were those whom he most admired. What he promised, throughout his presidency and his reelection campaign, was that he will nominate judges who respect the law and will not legislate from the bench.
Ms. Miers is not unqualified. The fact that she has never served on a bench, state or federal, or is not a prominent legal scholar in no way disqualifies her from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has spent her life in private practice, she has served as president of the Texas state bar, and has served in the Bush Administration in it’s entirety. If Ms. Miers’ credentials do not suffice as proper qualification than neither did those of William Rehnquist, the late and great Chief Justice whom all conservatives agree was one of the nation’s greatest.
Neither is Ms. Miers a Bush "crony". The fact that she is a close associate and subordinate of the president should comfort conservatives tepid over her lack of a paper trail or discernible judicial philosophy. The president wants a justice who will exercise judicial restraint and remain faithful to the constitution just as much as anybody. His lower court appointments bear this out. After reviewing all possible candidates his personal association with Ms. Miers convinced him that she will meet this criterion. The president came to the same conclusion in a similar circumstance when selecting his running mate and vice president. Does any conservative dispute his judgment in that instance?
The president knows Harriet Miers, he trusts her with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In turn, I trust the president; he has never given me, nor any other conservative reason not to.
Hat Tip: John Hinderaker, Patrick Ruffini
UPDATE (4:13 P.M. 10/4/05): Read this.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Public Opinion-The National Judiciary
A new poll released by the American Bar Association shows strong public dissatisfaction with the national judiciary. While I do agree that the judiciary is certainly out of control in many respects, I don’t agree with some of the other sentiments expressed in this poll. For example, "[a] majority of survey respondents agreed with statements that ‘judicial activism’ has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters’ values should be impeached".
If judges are to simply stay in line with "voters’ values" and should be impeached if they fail to do so than the dividing line between the judicial branch and the other two political branches no longer exists. Judges must follow the letter and text of the law; following public opinion will only further the current problem.
Hat Tip: Confirm Them
If judges are to simply stay in line with "voters’ values" and should be impeached if they fail to do so than the dividing line between the judicial branch and the other two political branches no longer exists. Judges must follow the letter and text of the law; following public opinion will only further the current problem.
Hat Tip: Confirm Them
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Confirmed and Sworn In
John G. Roberts has been confirmed and sworn in as the seventeenth Chief Justice of the United States. Praising his credentials and qualifications at this point would be repetitive on my part, so I’ll simply state that John Roberts will be a fantastic Chief Justice and his confirmation insures our government’s third branch will be in good hands for many years to come. Congratulations to Chief Justice Roberts on his ascension to the Supreme Court’s center seat and to President Bush for nominating the most qualified man for the job.
The occasion of Chief Justice Robert’s overwhelming confirmation vote also warrants a tip of the cap to the one-half of the Democratic Caucus that voted for the chief, including my state’s senior senator Patty Murray. Granted, Thursday’s Democratic "yea" votes probably weren’t so much an affirmation of support for John Roberts as a strategic move intended to pay dividends in the next confirmation fight, but all that really matters in the end is that Democrats voting in the affirmative did the right thing, not why they did the right thing.
The occasion of Chief Justice Robert’s overwhelming confirmation vote also warrants a tip of the cap to the one-half of the Democratic Caucus that voted for the chief, including my state’s senior senator Patty Murray. Granted, Thursday’s Democratic "yea" votes probably weren’t so much an affirmation of support for John Roberts as a strategic move intended to pay dividends in the next confirmation fight, but all that really matters in the end is that Democrats voting in the affirmative did the right thing, not why they did the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)