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.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)