Saturday, November 15, 2008
"Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government -- verily, "socialism" -- would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would "spread the wealth around."
America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans -- whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; and a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm -- and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around."
The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well."
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
"A radio advertisement running in Wisconsin and other contested states misleadingly reports that Mr. McCain “has stood in the way of” federal financing for stem cell research; Mr. McCain did once oppose such federally supported research but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 (his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does not support it).
A commercial running here on Thursday morning highlighting Mr. McCain’s votes against incentives for alternative energy misleadingly asserts he supports tax breaks for “one source of energy: oil companies.” Mr. McCain’s proposed corporate tax break would cover all companies, including those developing new sources of power.
A new television advertisement playing in areas with high concentrations of elderly voters and emphasizing Mr. McCain’s support for President Bush’s failed plan for private Social Security accounts misleadingly implies Mr. McCain supported “cutting benefits in half” — an analysis of Mr. Bush’s plan that would have applied to upper-income Americans retiring in the year 2075.
A much criticized Spanish-language television advertisement wrongly links the views of Mr. McCain, who was a champion of the sweeping immigration overhaul pushed by Mr. Bush, to those of Rush Limbaugh, a harsh critic of the approach, and, frequently, of Mr. McCain.
The advertisement implies Mr. Limbaugh is one of Mr. McCain’s “Republican friends,” and quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling Mexicans “stupid and unqualified.” Mr. Limbaugh has written that his quotes were taken out of context and that he was mocking the views of others.
In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year’s untruthful spots (“Pants on Fire,” the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama’s advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; “False!” FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.) "
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
What was Obama's first executive order again?
Feel free to browse through the Governor's executive orders and compare them with what Obama did in his 143 days in the Senate.
Here is Obama's voting record in WaPo's "Key Votes." And in those key votes this is the only time, that Obama crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans and against the Democrats.
And this is the only time, the only time, that Obama crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans and against the Democrats.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
"DENVER (AP) - The shotgun-style charges Democratic National Convention speakers fired at Republican Sen. John McCain Tuesday night weren't necessarily half-truths. But in some instances, they weren't the whole story either.
Some examples of who said what—and what they left out:
_SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON of NEW YORK: "John McCain wants to privatize Social Security."
THE FACTS: The Republican-sponsored plans McCain has supported over the years would privatize part of Social Security by letting workers invest some of their payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. In the past, McCain has proposed that up to 20 percent of payroll taxes be funneled into private retirement accounts for younger workers. He recently said all solutions for the funding crisis facing Social Security "are on the table."
_CLINTON: "And in 2008, he (McCain) still thinks it's OK when women don't earn equal pay for equal work."
THE FACTS: In April, Senate Republicans killed legislation aimed at removing limits on how long workers can wait before suing their employers for pay discrimination. The bill was designed to address a Supreme Court decision that threw out a discrimination case brought by an Alabama woman. McCain said he opposed the measure because it would lead to more lawsuits, although he was campaigning that day and did not vote.
_PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: "John McCain has never believed in renewable energy, and he won't make it a part of America's future. For all his talk, here's the truth: John McCain voted against establishing a national renewable energy standard. He voted against tax incentives for renewable energy companies. And for all his talk of drilling, he refused to endorse a bipartisan effort to expand domestic oil production because that bipartisan proposal would end tax breaks for big oil."
_MONTANA GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER: "After eight years of a White House waiting hand and foot on big oil, John McCain offers more of the same. At a time of skyrocketing fuel prices, when American families are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, John McCain voted 25 times against renewable and alternative energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind energy."
THE FACTS: In fact, McCain's energy policy favors tax credits to encourage marketing of wind, hydro and solar power. However, since becoming a candidate for president, McCain has not shown up for eight Senate votes last year and this year to extend those tax credits, which expire at the end of this year. The last such vote was July 30. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama didn't show up for that vote, either, but he has voted for extensions of the renewable energy tax on several other occasions. McCain also has opposed legislation calling for a national renewable energy mandate for utilities, and he did not show up for a vote on such a mandate last year.
_SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR. of PENNSYLVANIA: "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick."
_RENDELL: "And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain."
THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.
_IOWA GOV. CHET CULVER: "Now the oil companies are placing their bets on John McCain, bankrolling his campaign, and gambling with our future."
THE FACTS: McCain has received more than $1.5 million in contributions from oil and gas industry employees and their spouses, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Obama has received about $423,000. But the center's analysis found that Obama has received more than McCain from employees of the oil industry's major companies. Employees (and their spouses) of Exxon, Chevron and BP had given more than $93,000 to Obama as of the end of June; McCain had received $75,000, according to the study.
_RENDELL: Said the fact that top McCain advisers have lobbied for oil and gas companies "explains why he wants to give another $4 billion tax break to oil companies."
THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies is part of McCain's plan to reduce corporate taxes overall and does not represent an additional tax benefit for these companies. The corporate reduction McCain has proposed would apply to all corporations, including oil companies.
_SCHWEITZER: "At a time when America should be working harder than ever to develop new, clean sources, John McCain wants more of the same and has taken more than a million dollars in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Now he wants to give the oil companies another $4 billion in tax breaks. Four billion in tax breaks for big oil?"
THE FACTS: McCain has collected $1.5 million from that industry. But it's a small slice of the $142 million McCain has raised so far in the campaign, ranking 11th on his donor list. Ahead of the oil and gas industry are lawyers, retirees, banking and securities interests, real estate and insurance. "
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
" Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no."
" Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London."
Friday, July 4, 2008
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Shucks. McCain denies the story.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
"About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,” and in the usual manner of these political commercials we are given a little citation at the bottom. The citation reads “Public Law 110-181 1/28/08”. That law is the only federal legislation cited in the ad — the other two items mentioned were from the Illinois legislature and referred to other issues raised in the ad."
"Public Law 110-181 was the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed the Senate by 91 to 3 in January, with six Senators not voting. Among those six absentees was Barack Obama. So he cites a bill he didn’t even vote for. Did he contribute to it in some way that might be reasonably referred to as extending healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected? It certainly doesn’t seem that way, as even Obama supporters at the Daily Kos discovered when they tried to answer some of the bloggers who pointed to Obama’s citation of the bill. They found that Obama had tried to insert an amendment that had to do with screenings for service members returning from deployments, and one that would ease the discharge of service members found to have personality disorders, but neither amendment passed. Another part of the bill, calling for inspector general reports about hospital facilities, had come from a different bill Obama had sponsored."
Friday, June 20, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
"It is already apparent that health care will be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election, and John McCain joined the fight with his April speech. While he praised Health Savings Accounts, called for medical tort reform, and promised to promote preventative medicine, the heart of his address consisted of a proposal to begin shifting from employer-based health insurance to individual-based health insurance that subscribers could take with them from job to job.
As McCain pointed out, such a system would have many advantages. Individuals and families could shop for policies that fit them best, promoting greater competition and innovation among insurance companies. Because rates would presumably, as with life insurance, be determined on an individual basis, individuals would have greater incentives to protect their own health and be more careful about the use of services. There would be a tighter connection between individual decisions and the cost to the individual. It is precisely that lack of connection that promotes spiraling health care costs today. And no one would lose insurance just because he or she lost a job.
In McCain’s plan, Americans could choose to go this route, receiving a direct $2,500 tax credit for individuals or $5,000 for families to use purchasing their own health insurance, or they could remain in their employer-based program.
In economic terms, McCain’s plan would try to solve the nation’s health care problems by harnessing the free market rather than working against it."
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
"...Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them."
Friday, April 11, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Here is the link
"From a reader:
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
I am writing this as I read your unbelievable book. This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. It has opened my eyes up to the truth. I salute you sir for this fine work.
The question that I have is, you point out that fascism is a community driven ideology such as Nazism was. When my liberal fascist friends ask me if I do not believe in building community and helping the community what do I say? Because I see in their words my times how they have no idea what they are talking about, but have a sincere heart.
Thank you so very much,
Me: Thanks very much for the kind words. A couple points. First, I don't know that your liberal friends are necessarily liberal fascists.
Second, and more important, I don't know that you should be against building community and helping the community. I'm not against either of those things. What I generally (though not absolutely) oppose are efforts to build the state while invoking the language of community as if the two are the same thing. The state isn't the community and the community isn't the state. And what I passionately and absolutely oppose in almost every instance (freeing slaves, smashing Jim Crow, are good exceptions to this rule) are efforts to destroy traditional community with inorganic state-imposed customs all the while claiming to be on the side of community.
But it would be absolutely crazy for me to say that I don't believe in building community. I am 100% for "building community" — rightly understood.
This gets us to an important point that I haven't discussed too much around here. People ask me why I've become more libertarian because of writing this book. The simple answer is that the one thing libertarians grasp better than conservatives or liberals is the danger of the category error when it comes to the role of government. While there are certainly plenty of radical individualists swelling the ranks of libertarianism, libertarianism is not in fact an ideology of radical individualism. Or at least it need not be. The fundamental insight of libertarianism is that the government is the government. It cannot be your mommy, your daddy, your big brother, your nanny, your friend, your buddy, your god, your salvation, your church or your conscience. It is the government. A big bureaucracy charged with certain responsibilities, some of which it is qualified to carry out, many of which it is not.
Now, I would invest more cultural authority in the government than a typical libertarian would (see Jim Manzi's post here for clues as to why). And generally speaking, conservatives, because of their patriotism and faith in a culturally coherent and sovereign nation, are prone to over-romanticizing the government. But libertarians are simply immune to this temptation. This immunity sometimes blinds them to the poetry — for want of a better word — inherent to politics, but it also blinds them to the totalitarian temptations hardwired into human nature. That's not a bad trade-off.
Meanwhile, most libertarians I know believe passionately in the Burkean little platoons of civil society. They support their local communities, churches, associations, whatever (read Charles Murray's elegant book "What it Means To Be A Libertarian" for more on this). This is real community. The category error comes when you try to translate that sense of community to the national level. It cannot be done, save perhaps in time of war (hence the eternal liberal desire for the moral equivalents of war). And even in wartime, what you have isn't community, so much as unity of purpose. Many on the left seem tone deaf to this distinction. Real community is diverse, local, particular, quirky, organic and grown from the bottom up. You can have something like a national culture, but the idea of a national community makes me very nervous.
This is my chief complaint about the New Deal and why I find nostalgia for it so troubling. “At the heart of the New Deal,” I quote William Schambra in the book, “was the resurrection of the national idea, the renewal of the vision of national community. Roosevelt sought to pull America together in the face of its divisions by an appeal to national duty, discipline, and brotherhood; he aimed to restore the sense of local community, at the national level.”
I don't want a "new New Deal" as so many liberals do, precisely because I don't want the State to foster a single one-size-fits-all conception of a healthy community on the entire nation.
Anyway, I'm rambling now. But you get my point."
In other words, Goldberg is arguing (and I would agree) that conservatives and libertarians should focus on local and community issues in order to avoid the (as he calls it) "one-size-fits-all conception of a healthy community" that might be foisted on the whole country by social engineers. So I do support some local organizations that focus on local problems. To do so does not make me a liberal. It makes me more conservative.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
One interesting exchange:
"JF: Professor Hanson, you criticize U.S. immigration policy in your recent book Mexifornia. What is it that bothers you about the development at the Southern border?
VDH: Many things. 1)We are wide open to terrorist infiltration; 2) We privilege illegal immigration from Mexico, while penalizing and delaying legal immigration from Asia, Africa, and Europe; 3) We serve as a safety valve and enabler for Mexico, which therefore will never make needed reforms; 4) We are creating a chauvinistic tribalism, a race industry that tries to convert the presence of 15 million illegal aliens into some sort of political movement; 5) We use cheap illegal labor to ensure our own entry level workers cannot bargain or organize."
"It began with a question to Obama during the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday. Obama has pledged to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and was asked if he reserved the right to go back into Iraq. He responded that "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
"The next day McCain mocked Obama, ''I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq." Obama fired back, ''I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets. But I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
"So what is Obama's Iraq strategy? It seems to be that he knows al-Qaida is in Iraq but he's going to pull out anyway. But if al-Qaida establishes a base in Iraq, he will go back in. Does that sound confused to you? Me, too."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
"Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't worth fighting because it wouldn't be there if it weren't for Bush and McCain. Obama is going to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although he will send them back to Iraq if al Qaeda are there, even though he now wants to withdraw notwithstanding al Qaeda's presence."
"Yes, we can!"
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Look at the original credenda:
"Among our convictions:
It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.
The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).
The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.") Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.
The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story.
No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization."
Monday, February 25, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Club for Growth recently lauded Rep. Devin Nunes for his self-imposed moratorium on earmarks in the federal budget until real reforms are implemented. The Club for Growth Club is a national network of Americans who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom.
Here's one of the Club's latest posts analyzing a story in the Fresno Bee in which some public officials decried Rep. Nunes' stand.
Club for Growth article
Friday, February 8, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
"Bill Clinton, by executive edict, declared 1.7 million acres of Utah to be a national monument. Under those acres are the largest known deposit—more than 60 billion tons—of low-sulfur, clean-burning coal. The second largest deposit, the value of which rose because of Clinton's action locking up an alternative supply, is in Indonesia and is owned by a member of the Indonesian Riady family, of fragrant memory, which was generous to Clinton's 1992 campaign.
James and Stephen Eaves, writing in Regulation quarterly, note that if the entire U.S. corn crop were turned into ethanol— it might have to be to meet the goal of 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017—it would displace 3.5 percent of gasoline use, just slightly more than would be displaced if drivers properly inflated their tires. And because the United States produces 40 percent of the world's corn supply and 70 percent of global corn exports, turning corn into fuel will damage the world's poor at a time when rising demand will require a tripling of world food production by 2050."
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
EIGHT MORE YEARS
Friday, January 25, 2008
Click here to see McCain's conservative record, issue by issue.
Click here to see that McCain's Lifetime ranking from the American Conservative Union is 83% (2005, 80%)
Click here to see a list of conservative and Republican McCain endorsements (and others)
Click here for polls that show how McCain is the only Republican candidate who beats Clinton and Obama in head-to-head matchups. No other Republican comes within ten points.
Click here for an article about McCain's actions as part of the so-called "Gang of 14."
I won't post any more pro-McCain stuff. I promise.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Here is what the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” said about the story:
Just Some Center
"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks," the Associated Press reports:
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.
Nowhere in the entire dispatch does the AP tell us anything more about the two groups than that they are "nonprofit journalism organizations." In fact, the Center for Public Integrity is a liberal-left group that has taken money from George Soros, who has compared contemporary America to Nazi Germany. The Fund for Independence in Journalism seems to be but a spinoff; its Web site says its "primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support" for the center.
Certainly if the AP is going to report on this "study," it ought to disclose the political leanings of the groups that sponsored it. Though come to think of it, given those political leanings, it's hard to see why this is even newsworthy.”
So the two groups are really one group funded by George Soros, one of the primary financial supporters of anti-Bush 527 groups like moveon.org and any number of other organizations.
Here is the report with links to the database of “lies”:
The report begins like this: “President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.”
So the charge is not that they told 935 lies. The charge is that the Bush administration made 2 assertions, 935 times, on 532 occasions. The two assertions were 1) that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction at the start of the Iraq war and 2) Iraq did not have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. #1 hardly qualifies as a “lie” by any standard of what lying is. We have no way of knowing exactly what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. We know that they had them in the past and had used them in the past. We know that they had some continuing programs. We know that they still wanted WMD. We also know that the Bush administration was receiving reports of continuing WMD programs. And we know that none of that matters since Iraq was not cooperating with UN sanctions or inspections at the time, giving the impression to a reasonable observer that they in fact had something to hide. Regardless, I am not sure how any reasonable interpretation of those items could be called a lie. #2 depends on what you count as “meaningful” and what counts as “ties.” The Bush administration never asserted that Saddam was behind 9/11 in any way. But Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq (still are); Iraq was funding terrorism against Israel and the United States; and members of Al Qaeda with planning knowledge of the 9/11 attacks were in Iraq (and eventually captured there) and Saddam had no interest in turning them over to the United States.
So the report was issued by two groups that are actually one group that is biased and there weren’t 935 lies, only two assertions, repeated on 532 occasions, that weren’t lies. And it still ends up in the paper.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Much is being made – if you count the media and the talking heads – about the fact that California Republicans have barred anyone from voting in their primary who isn’t a registered member of the party.
The Governor says Republicans will lose tens of thousands of votes as a result. He may be right. The media says we are being “exclusionary.” There is even disagreement within the party itself whether this is the right thing to do.
At their core, political parties are founded on principles. The people who join these parties vote for candidates they think will defend and advance these principles as a matter of public policy.
So why, then, would we include people who don’t want to be formally identified with our party to play a role in deciding who will best represent our REPUBLICAN interests?
In my experience, people who identify themselves as Decline to State (or independents) will say they vote for the person, not the party. That would sound idyllic if it wasn’t so wishy-washy.
I can understand how a decline to state voter could get the warm-fuzzies for one candidate over another, regardless of party. But at the end of the day that candidate represents a party founded on principles – and he/she will be expected to champion them.
As REPUBLICANS, we debate among ourselves which candidate will be REPUBLICAN enough to represent us. I don’t like the idea of letting that decision be made in part by a group swayed by a fast talker with a warm handshake. (Disclaimer: These views are my own and don’t represent those of any REPUBLICAN organization.)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The most cited data to prove this point come from the Pew Political Typology survey. By 2005, it had found that so many self-described conservatives were in favor of government activism that they had to come up with a name for them. 'Running-dog liberals' apparently seemed too pejorative, so the survey went with 'pro-government conservatives,' a term that might have caused Ronald Reagan to spontaneously combust. This group makes up just under 10 percent of registered voters and something like a third of the Republican coalition. Ninety-four percent of pro-government conservatives favored raising the minimum wage, as did 79 percent of self-described social conservatives. Eight out of 10 pro-government conservatives believe that the government should do more to help the poor and slightly more than that distrust big corporations."
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Seriously, don't buy a cup of coffee today and give the McCain campaign $2.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
"The dynamic I see in the Republican race is this: Five candidates have reason, from their own points of view, to continue their candidacies and no motive to stop anytime soon:
* Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses and has some reasonable prospects in South Carolina on January 19.
* Romney, having won “the silver” in Iowa and New Hampshire and being in possession of a checkbook with $50 million in liquid funds, will contest Michigan and has no motive not to continue if he doesn’t win there.
* McCain, celebrating his win in New Hampshire, gave a speech that was in the nature of accepting the mantle of national leadership, and plausibly so.
* Fred Thompson, absent from tonight’s television but fresh from a fine appearance on Fox News’s Sunday night debate, has no motive to withdraw to private life.
* Nor does Rudy Giuliani, whose sterling policy achievements and unforgettable leadership after the September 11 attacks may still resonate as they did in the first half of 2007 but have not, at least in presidential polls, in the past two months."
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Fear, he said, is an ongoing challenge county prosecutors face in making their cases against the accused. Witnesses and victims, their families and neighbors are simply afraid of reprisals from gang members and are reluctant to testify. He said the most important person in the courtroom is a witness, and without them putting the perpetrators away is made more difficult.
In addition, police and prosecutors are not getting enough help from youth who could provide valuable information because pop culture (including rap songs) deride people who would cooperate with law enforcement.
There's no simple solution, Cline said, but one thing is clear: communities, neighborhoods and families need to rally around those people brave enough to step forward with information that puts the bad guys away.
So what we take away from the four Democratic Presidential candidates' stunning display of misinformation and false statements about the surge Saturday evening is that they have simply stopped thinking about Iraq. They seem to have concluded that opposition to the war permits them to literally not know what the U.S. or the Iraqis are doing there. As the nation commences the selection of an American President, this is a phenomenon worth noting."
Monday, January 7, 2008
There are more than 25,000 of us. That's 11,000 MORE than Democrats in the same age range.
In fact, YOUNG REPUBLICANS rule in all 11 San Joaquin Valley counties, except Sacramento (any wonder it's so screwed up?).
My point? Time to flex our muscles. Your opportunity to get involved starts here.