We also found out this past week that Obama denied a request by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with him, apparently claiming his schedule was too busy. Yet, on the very day in question, Obama managed to find time in his schedule to appear on the David Letterman Show! At least we know what his priorities are.
Charles Krauthammer has an outstanding column on NRO called "The Abandonment." I highly recommend it. Krauthammer explains clearly and concisely how Obama's policy on Iran is utterly incoherent and is a miserable failure. He also shows how this policy constitutes not just a danger to our own country's national security but a complete abandonment of our closest ally in the region, Israel.
Obama's weakness toward Iran and indifference toward Israel are two more reasons why he must not be re-elected.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Constitution Day
The Constitution was signed at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. You can find a quick refresher course here, including the full text of the Constitution and an option to download it. I encourage you to read it and think about it. Few seem to have read it today, and many of those who have done so like to embrace the "spirit of encroachment" and "change by usurpation" that George Washington warns us about below. I hope and pray that these next few years we will see a return to these principles on which our country was founded.
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
~George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
~George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
Some Thoughts on the Past Week's Events -- Here and in the Middle East
Like many other Americans, I watched the unfolding events in the Middle East this week and the response from our government with concern, frustration, and anger. I wanted to post on this earlier but had little time and too many disjointed ideas running through my head. I am finally now getting the chance to put those ideas down on paper.
The whole point of free speech is that you have the right to say what you believe without being silenced by the government. If you say idiotic things, you should expect to face criticism from other people who also have freedom of speech. If you tell lies, you should expect to have other people use their freedom of speech to expose your lies. But the notion that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect people’s right to criticize other people’s religious beliefs or their right to say things that offend other people is ludicrous and dangerous. I have freedom of speech to criticize your beliefs if I think they’re wrong. You have freedom of speech to respond and defend your beliefs. If you are offended by my free speech, you do not have the right to silence me. Precisely because we live in a free country, this filmmaker has every right to make a movie about Islam or Mohammed. It doesn’t matter if Muslims are offended or not – he still has the right to make the movie and express his opinion. If the filmmaker is telling lies or expressing hate, he should expect to be harshly criticized. If his speech is too offensive, then people will decide not to watch it and movie theatres will choose not to carry it. That’s how freedom works.
I read attacks on the Internet against evangelical Christianity all the time. I frequently read articles and comments that accuse all evangelical Christians of being bigoted and narrow-minded and of hating gays and science and that claim the Bible supports racism and slavery. Plays have run in this country that ridicule "Jesus and his band of queers" and art exhibits that show a crucifix immersed in urine have been funded with taxpayer dollars. I don’t like it when I hear people say those things about my beliefs, but I haven’t gone out and rioted or beheaded anyone. If those people hold important positions and their speech is offensive enough then I have the right to band with other like-minded people and try to get them fired or force them to apologize or keep them from getting taxpayer money. But I don’t deny they have the legal right under the 1st Amendment to say those hateful things. Why are Muslims special? Why do they have the right to demand that no one criticize them when that right is not extended to other religious groups like Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
Freedom of speech, religion, and the press does not exist in Muslim countries (with maybe a couple of exceptions). If you go to almost any country in the Islamic world and start saying things that are not approved by the government, you will be imprisoned and possibly killed. Most Muslim countries are theocracies, which means that the religious leaders are also the political leaders. They do not allow any religion to be practiced other than Islam, which means that people who hold to other religious beliefs are persecuted, jailed, or killed. If I go to a Muslim country and talk to them about my faith or try to convert them, I will be deported, jailed, or killed, and if they convert to my religion, they will be killed. That is why Muslims are completely intolerant of any criticism of Islam or Mohammed. In the world they live in, there is no freedom. Everyone must bow to Mohammed or be silenced or killed. In many of their nations sharia law is enforced, which means that all residents of a country must obey the precepts of the Koran. Their religion teaches the concept of "jihad," which seeks to bring all the world under the control of Islam. And the spread of Islam has often been through conquest and forced conversion, following the example of Mohammed.
So tell me again: why are we the ones who need to apologize? We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They do not. Should we apologize for that? Our country gives Muslims the right to practice their religion and proselytize; their countries do not give Christians the right to practice their religion and proselytize. Should we apologize for that? Our country’s people, leaders, and laws are among the most tolerant of any country on earth; theirs are among the least tolerant. Should we apologize for that? We permit filmmakers to make films that offend Muslims, just as we permit filmmakers to make films that offend people from any other religion. We permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about Mohammed, just as we permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about any other religious or political figure. Should we apologize for that? I think we should celebrate all of these things. There are more than 300 million people who live in this country, all of whom are saying and doing all kinds of things in freedom. The government is not responsible for anything that any private citizen in this country says and does not need to apologize for any of it. That includes some obscure filmmaker in LA and some obscure preacher who wants to burn the Koran in FL. How dare our government apologize to those angry mobs on behalf of America!
The events transpiring this week show once again why Obama does not deserve another four years. His foreign policy has been just as disastrous as his domestic policy, in my opinion.
- Why was the Obama Administration not prepared for potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11? The British newspaper The Independent has reported that there were credible sources warning about foreign embassy attacks 48 hours prior to their occurrence, but no warnings were given to put foreign diplomats on high alert. Whether or not these allegations were true, shouldn't our government have anticipated the possibility of attacks on that day? It appears the interim embassy in Libya in particular was woefully unprotected, with Libyan security forces rather than U.S. military personnel defending it. And the Marines defending the Egyptian embassy had no ammunition. Why did President Obama skip his daily security briefing that morning -- and every other morning since September 5th? I realize that the president can digest the information from these briefings without having to be physically present at every one of them, but it seems like the one on the anniversary of 9/11 should have been especially important. Maybe he could have made time for it by cancelling his appearance on a radio show hosted by "The Pimp With a Limp" that same day. It seems that our government, from Obama on down, was napping on the job when it comes to our country's security.
- Why did the Obama Administration apologize as its first official response to the violent protests in the Middle East? The U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement apologizing for some obscure anti-Islam film produced in the U.S. and expressing sympathy for the angry protestors. Not surprisingly, the mob went on to attack the embassy, remove and destroy the U.S. flag hanging over the embassy, and replace it with the Al Qaeda flag. These people know weakness when they see it. This apology was reiterated after the attacks and remained the only official government response to the Middle East violence for 9 and 1/2 hours, even after the death of our Libyan ambassador and three other Americans. Not until after Romney came out and condemned the apology did the White House finally issue a statement distancing himself from it as well and saying it did not reflect the official policy of the Obama administration. Later, information came out that indicated the attacks had been carefully planned for the anniversary of 9/11 (the attackers were armed with mortars) and the protests over the American film (which had already been out for a few months) were only used as a pretext and a distraction anyway. But still, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement two days later with the same conciliatory, apologetic tone regarding the controversial American film. As Victor Davis Hanson points out, the statements from the U.S. embassy in Cairo and from Clinton played right into the hands of our enemies who want to lay the blame for the attacks at the feet of the U.S. government. But don't hold your breath waiting for President Apology Tour himself to hold anyone from his administration accountable for this.
- Perhaps to cover up its own weakness and lack of preparedness, the Obama Administration quickly tried to distract attention from the important issue -- the attacks on our embassy -- by attacking Romney for "politicizing" the attacks. As though it is inappropriate for a presidential candidate to offer a statement on an important foreign policy issue that has taken center stage during the campaign! I, for one, would like to know Romney's opinion on this issue and I think most Americans would as well. But of course, the lapdog press obediently followed their marching orders from Obama's campaign and launched blistering attacks on Romney as well. The next morning, Romney held a press conference in which he elaborated on his positions on the Middle East attacks and defended his previous statement that the U.S. should not be apologizing to terrorists. He then answered questions from the press. The press showed their true colors in response -- 5 of their 7 questions were all variations on the exact same question about whether Romney regretted "jumping the gun" and attacking the president so quickly after the attacks on our embassies. Our country had been attacked, and yet it was painfully obvious that American journalists had no substantive questions and were not interested in focusing on the important issues unfolding in the Middle East, but were only interested in trying to discredit Romney and score political points. Later, audio was released of a number of the journalists conspiring to attack Romney prior to the press conference and discussing what was the best language to use in the questioning! Clearly those questions at the press conference were no accident but were the result of careful coordination and collusion by the press.
- Obama also gave a statement to the press the morning following the attacks, but unlike Romney, Obama took no questions at all from the press. You tell me whether that makes Obama, the sitting president, look more or less presidential than Romney. Obama also cancelled his daily security briefing that day -- the day after an act of war against our country. Instead, he jetted off to a glitzy fundraiser in Las Vegas, where he barely managed to get the rowdy, adoring crowd to quiet down long enough to say a couple of sentences about the embassy attacks and the loss of four Americans before launching into full campaign mode. No big deal that our enemies knew the location of our ambassador's safe house, dragged his body through the streets (described by Hillary Clinton as "Libyans carry[ing] Chris's body to the hospital") and stole documents with the names of Libyans who cooperated with the U.S. It was left to Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, to assure Americans that these attacks were not an attack against America or the American people or the Obama Administration -- they were merely expressing anger against that evil filmmaker that the Obamites are so obsessed with! How pathetic for this administration to try to claim that attacks against our embassies and our people overseas are not attacks on America. Of course they are attacks on America, and they are attacks that deserve a strong and unapologetic response. That is certainly not happening, as the Administration doesn't even seem willing to admit the incident in Libya was a terrorist attack and an act of war against our country. The State Department has gone silent, citing an ongoing FBI investigation. This is not a liquor store holdup; it's a national security crisis and an act of war against America and the American people deserve answers and accountability. Good luck getting the press to help with that; they're too busy parsing Romney's press releases. Some members of the press even had the audacity to blame Mitt Romney and his press conference for their failure to cover the attacks effectively!
- These attacks show the fundamental weakness of U.S. foreign policy. Charles Krauthammer put it this way in an interview on Fox News: "Obama himself said we’re doing a pivot out of the Middle East to the Pacific. He has proclaimed the tide of war is over. He took us out of Iraq leaving no residual force. He announced withdrawal from Afghanistan on a timetable. When it came to Arab Spring, he was indecisive. In Iran he would not support protesters. Libya, half in and half out. Everybody in the region understands that America, which had been the dominant element, is now in withdrawal, is not interested. The Gulf Arabs are apoplectic about Iran going nuclear, it’s not just Israel. Now our friends are looking around saying, ‘Do we really have anybody who will support us?’ The extreme jihadists and the moderate jihadists in the region are now saying ‘This is our time.’ I’ll give you one example of the withdrawal of our influence: Syria. Does anybody in the region ask what is the American position? Everybody wants to know what Russia is doing and thinking and what supplies it’s sending. What’s Iran doing? What is Hezbollah doing? America is irrelevant." Krauthammer said in another interview: "What we’re seeing now is Al Qaedastan developing in Libya, a meltdown of our relations with Egypt… riots in Yemen, attacks on our embassy in Tunisia….These are the fruits of apology and retreat and lack of confidence in our own principles."
- Obama doesn't even seem to be able to make up his mind about what he thinks about the new Egyptian government. He said in an interview that he considers them neither an ally or an enemy, and the utter failure of their Muslim Brotherhood-led government to protect our embassy there doesn't seem to argue in favor of them being an ally. Yet, his administration continues to push for more than $1 billion in financial aid to that country.
The whole point of free speech is that you have the right to say what you believe without being silenced by the government. If you say idiotic things, you should expect to face criticism from other people who also have freedom of speech. If you tell lies, you should expect to have other people use their freedom of speech to expose your lies. But the notion that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect people’s right to criticize other people’s religious beliefs or their right to say things that offend other people is ludicrous and dangerous. I have freedom of speech to criticize your beliefs if I think they’re wrong. You have freedom of speech to respond and defend your beliefs. If you are offended by my free speech, you do not have the right to silence me. Precisely because we live in a free country, this filmmaker has every right to make a movie about Islam or Mohammed. It doesn’t matter if Muslims are offended or not – he still has the right to make the movie and express his opinion. If the filmmaker is telling lies or expressing hate, he should expect to be harshly criticized. If his speech is too offensive, then people will decide not to watch it and movie theatres will choose not to carry it. That’s how freedom works.
I read attacks on the Internet against evangelical Christianity all the time. I frequently read articles and comments that accuse all evangelical Christians of being bigoted and narrow-minded and of hating gays and science and that claim the Bible supports racism and slavery. Plays have run in this country that ridicule "Jesus and his band of queers" and art exhibits that show a crucifix immersed in urine have been funded with taxpayer dollars. I don’t like it when I hear people say those things about my beliefs, but I haven’t gone out and rioted or beheaded anyone. If those people hold important positions and their speech is offensive enough then I have the right to band with other like-minded people and try to get them fired or force them to apologize or keep them from getting taxpayer money. But I don’t deny they have the legal right under the 1st Amendment to say those hateful things. Why are Muslims special? Why do they have the right to demand that no one criticize them when that right is not extended to other religious groups like Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
Freedom of speech, religion, and the press does not exist in Muslim countries (with maybe a couple of exceptions). If you go to almost any country in the Islamic world and start saying things that are not approved by the government, you will be imprisoned and possibly killed. Most Muslim countries are theocracies, which means that the religious leaders are also the political leaders. They do not allow any religion to be practiced other than Islam, which means that people who hold to other religious beliefs are persecuted, jailed, or killed. If I go to a Muslim country and talk to them about my faith or try to convert them, I will be deported, jailed, or killed, and if they convert to my religion, they will be killed. That is why Muslims are completely intolerant of any criticism of Islam or Mohammed. In the world they live in, there is no freedom. Everyone must bow to Mohammed or be silenced or killed. In many of their nations sharia law is enforced, which means that all residents of a country must obey the precepts of the Koran. Their religion teaches the concept of "jihad," which seeks to bring all the world under the control of Islam. And the spread of Islam has often been through conquest and forced conversion, following the example of Mohammed.
So tell me again: why are we the ones who need to apologize? We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They do not. Should we apologize for that? Our country gives Muslims the right to practice their religion and proselytize; their countries do not give Christians the right to practice their religion and proselytize. Should we apologize for that? Our country’s people, leaders, and laws are among the most tolerant of any country on earth; theirs are among the least tolerant. Should we apologize for that? We permit filmmakers to make films that offend Muslims, just as we permit filmmakers to make films that offend people from any other religion. We permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about Mohammed, just as we permit publishers to publish books with cartoons about any other religious or political figure. Should we apologize for that? I think we should celebrate all of these things. There are more than 300 million people who live in this country, all of whom are saying and doing all kinds of things in freedom. The government is not responsible for anything that any private citizen in this country says and does not need to apologize for any of it. That includes some obscure filmmaker in LA and some obscure preacher who wants to burn the Koran in FL. How dare our government apologize to those angry mobs on behalf of America!
The events transpiring this week show once again why Obama does not deserve another four years. His foreign policy has been just as disastrous as his domestic policy, in my opinion.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Obama's Record, Summed Up by a Link and a Few Graphs
A recent article from National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru, entitled "Obama vs. the Constitution," does a great job summarizing the numerous ways in which Obama has shown disregard for the rule of law as president. If Obama has behaved in this way during his first four years in office, knowing that he still has to face the voters again, it seems logical that he will be even more bold in pushing through his agenda in defiance of constitutional restraints if he is re-elected!
I also found this fascinating series of graphs that chart the employment percentage of the working-age population during and after three key recessions in recent U.S. history. The first one is from the early 1980's, the second one is from the early 1990's, and the final one is from the last several years. They powerfully demonstrate the utter economic failure of the Obama Administration and the need for a change in leadership.
I also found this fascinating series of graphs that chart the employment percentage of the working-age population during and after three key recessions in recent U.S. history. The first one is from the early 1980's, the second one is from the early 1990's, and the final one is from the last several years. They powerfully demonstrate the utter economic failure of the Obama Administration and the need for a change in leadership.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Overheard at the Democratic Convention
I don't think I've ever watched more than 5 minutes or so of any Democratic Convention prior to this year. But I decided to make a conscious effort to watch at least some of the speeches this time, because I wanted to be able to comment intelligently on the convention and I didn't think I could do that fairly without watching at least some of it. And I honestly wanted to be able to compare the two conventions without depending solely on the opinions of others. It was tough but I managed it. I watched more than an hour of speeches each of the first two nights of the convention, although I missed both Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton. They were both speaking quite late, and I knew I would read and hear plenty about their speeches the next day. I was more interested in hearing the speeches outside of the 10:00 hour anyway, because those are the ones that often slip under the public radar and give a more honest impression of what is really going on at the convention. I found much of what I saw to be disgusting, even sickening. The thought that close to half of Americans identify themselves with this political party leads me to the inevitable conclusion that we are doomed as a country.
2. "War on Women" Theme
There was a huge emphasis on appealing to women at the Democratic convention, at least the portions of it that I watched. I admit I saw a little of this at the GOP convention as well, especially from Mitt and Ann Romney. But the Democrats were trying to develop this major theme that Republicans are waging a war on women and want to take away all their rights. Bizarrely, actress Kerry Washington claimed that Republicans were trying to take away women's rights to vote, to get an education, to access health care, and to receive equal pay (and was wildly applauded for it too). Ironically, a video clip of an Obama speech shown early in the convention warned that women "are not an interest group." Yet, throughout the entire convention, women were treated like an interest group. They were assumed to be a monolithic group whose chief concerns are abortion on demand and free contraception guaranteed by the government. Karol Markowicz has a great piece in the New York Post in which she notes the condescension in all of this "painful pandering." Yet, the Party of Women did a lengthy tribute video showcasing the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who drunkenly drove a woman into the bay and then left her to drown. And they chose noted respecter-of-women Bill Clinton to give the keynote address for the second evening of the convention. Do they think women don't care about this kind of behavior from their politicians as long as those politicians hold the right position on abortion?
3. Class Warfare
And then there was a heaping dose of class warfare. I heard repeated attacks on Mitt Romney's personal wealth from several different speakers. One of the worst offenders was former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who claimed that Romney was unpatriotic for earning overseas profits and having overseas investments and who made nasty and completely unfounded accusations about what Romney was hiding in his unreleased tax returns. He also lied by claiming that Romney's tax plan would eliminate capital gains taxes on Romney's own income. Michelle Obama spoke later that evening and assured everyone that she and her husband have never resented wealth. OKKKK...she must have missed the rest of the convention. On the second night, three former Bain Capital employees spoke and talked about how cruel and heartless Romney was for taking over their companies and then laying them off. (Fact-checkers discovered that one of the three was a union negotiator who never even worked for Bain.) Ironically, they kept saying that they understood that in the real world there are winners and losers and that sometimes it is inevitable that unprofitable companies must shut down, but they turned around and attacked Romney in the next breath for participating in such capitalist activities. and "fiscal responsibility." Throughout the convention there were allusions to "fairness" and Republican attacks on the "working class" (by such luminaries as the presidents of the UAW and the AFL-CIO) and claims that the "system was rigged" against those working class people (Elizabeth Warren). It was grievance politics at its finest.
4. Controversy Over God and Jerusalem
One thing that deservedly got a lot of attention was the brouhaha at the convention over changes to the party platform. It came out on the first day of the convention that Democrats had removed the only remaining reference to God in the party platform (it was a reference to people realizing their "God-given potential" and they took out the word "God-given") and had also removed language in the platform that recognized Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel, called for the increasing isolation of terrorist group Hamas, and acknowledged the right of Israel to exist as a nation. The platform also inserted wording that said the Democrats support legal and taxpayer-funded third-trimester abortion. The removal of God and Jerusalem from the platform, in particular, garnered a lot of attention. Senator Richard Durbin flipped out when asked about these changes on Fox News and started ranting about how people were trying to claim the Democratic Party was "godless." Realizing that these changes made their party look extreme, the Democratic leadership decided to call for a voice vote to reinsert the God and Jerusalem references into the platform. The vote required a two-thirds majority vote of "yes" for the motion to pass, but the delegates on the convention floor appeared to be equally divided between yes and no. The presiding officer seemed startled and unsure of what to do so he tried the vote again two more times, with the exact same results. After the third time, he summarily announced that two-thirds of the delegates had voted yes and claimed the motion had passed, and the crowd booed loudly in response. This resulted in the headline "Democrats boo God, Jerusalem." Of course, it's one of the worst-kept secrets in politics that many liberal activists are hostile toward the state of Israel. Hadley Arkes pointed out on National Review Online that "God-given" rights are a key component of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most fundamental beliefs underlying the American republic. If we give ourselves rights or if those rights are granted to us by leaders or governments, they can just as easily be taken away. The reason our rights are unalienable and permanent is that they are given to us by our Creator God. Once we lose that notion of human dignity and worth due to the image of God, our rights are in grave danger.
Here is a video of the floor vote and reaction of the delegates:
5. Sandra Fluke
1. Celebration of Abortion & Homosexuality
One of the complaints often leveled against conservatives is that they are obsessed with abortion and homosexuality. Well. I watched most of the speeches at the Republican Convention -- and not just the 10:00 prime time speeches either -- and I barely heard anything about either abortion or homosexuality the entire time. The ONLY speakers I heard who made more than a passing mention of either topic were Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. (Actually, they didn't say anything about homosexuality, but did defend traditional marriage and the family.) By the way, I am not criticizing them for this -- I was truly glad to hear at least a couple of speakers willing to defend the party's positions on these issues! But I hardly see how Republicans can be accused of being obsessed with these topics. However, I did find out this week that there is one political party that is obsessed with abortion and homosexuality -- the Democratic Party. As one pundit quipped, the Democrats only moved the venue for their Dead Baby Fiesta out of the Planned Parenthood clinic up the street because it wasn't big enough to accommodate the crowds. Of course, they use clever euphemisms for abortion like "women's rights to control their own bodies" and "reproductive choice" and make veiled references to same-sex marriage with phrases like "being free to love whomever you choose." Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America gave a strident speech entirely about abortion. She said every woman should be able to abort her child "with dignity," noted that pro-abortion Obama "cares deeply about the next generation of women" (the irony of that statement is entirely lost on her I'm sure), and ended up with "a rousing encouragement to talk to strangers about reproductive rights. That should go smoothly" (thanks, Daniel Foster of NRO!).
Same-sex marriage (couched in language like "being free to love whomever you choose") was also front and center, led by gay Representative Jared Polis who spoke repeatedly of the son he and his partner are raising. In fact, every speech and major video presentation I watched over an hour and 15 minute period on the first night, with one or two exceptions, included a prominent mention or discussion of both abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as most of the later speeches that I did not watch. (The moral preening by the Democrats on the same-sex marriage issue is especially amusing, given the fact that Obama only switched his position on this issue a few short months ago.) Abortion and contraception remained a big focus of the convention on the second night, which featured the president of Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke (more on her later), and the "women of the Senate."
One of the complaints often leveled against conservatives is that they are obsessed with abortion and homosexuality. Well. I watched most of the speeches at the Republican Convention -- and not just the 10:00 prime time speeches either -- and I barely heard anything about either abortion or homosexuality the entire time. The ONLY speakers I heard who made more than a passing mention of either topic were Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. (Actually, they didn't say anything about homosexuality, but did defend traditional marriage and the family.) By the way, I am not criticizing them for this -- I was truly glad to hear at least a couple of speakers willing to defend the party's positions on these issues! But I hardly see how Republicans can be accused of being obsessed with these topics. However, I did find out this week that there is one political party that is obsessed with abortion and homosexuality -- the Democratic Party. As one pundit quipped, the Democrats only moved the venue for their Dead Baby Fiesta out of the Planned Parenthood clinic up the street because it wasn't big enough to accommodate the crowds. Of course, they use clever euphemisms for abortion like "women's rights to control their own bodies" and "reproductive choice" and make veiled references to same-sex marriage with phrases like "being free to love whomever you choose." Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America gave a strident speech entirely about abortion. She said every woman should be able to abort her child "with dignity," noted that pro-abortion Obama "cares deeply about the next generation of women" (the irony of that statement is entirely lost on her I'm sure), and ended up with "a rousing encouragement to talk to strangers about reproductive rights. That should go smoothly" (thanks, Daniel Foster of NRO!).
Same-sex marriage (couched in language like "being free to love whomever you choose") was also front and center, led by gay Representative Jared Polis who spoke repeatedly of the son he and his partner are raising. In fact, every speech and major video presentation I watched over an hour and 15 minute period on the first night, with one or two exceptions, included a prominent mention or discussion of both abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as most of the later speeches that I did not watch. (The moral preening by the Democrats on the same-sex marriage issue is especially amusing, given the fact that Obama only switched his position on this issue a few short months ago.) Abortion and contraception remained a big focus of the convention on the second night, which featured the president of Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke (more on her later), and the "women of the Senate."
Something that especially stood out to me from the convention is that when Democrats refer to "individual freedom/choice" or "getting the government out of people's lives" they are talking about abortion and gay marriage -- exclusively. Keenan was introduced by one Maria Ciano ("a stay-at-home mom and former Republican voter"!) who wailed that Romney & Ryan don't believe in small government because they "want the government to have a say in [her] family planning" and "want to deny [her] the power to make the most personal decisions about [her] life." Former Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island gave a speech saying Obama is the right choice for "conservatives" (apparently he delusionally imagines himself to be one) because he believes in individual freedom. You guessed it -- his two individual freedom examples consisted of abortion on demand and same-sex marriage. Choice, freedom, and small government apparently do not extend to health care or education or conscience protections for religious employers or union membership or taxation or energy policy or regulations on small business or nanny state regulations on junk food. Conservatives, on the other hand, want choice and freedom in all these areas and many more. We just do not think choice and personal freedom justify killing a human life or redefining an ancient social institution critical to the wellbeing of our children. Reason TV has a great video demonstrating the extent to which Democratic Convention delegates actually believe in "choice":
2. "War on Women" Theme
There was a huge emphasis on appealing to women at the Democratic convention, at least the portions of it that I watched. I admit I saw a little of this at the GOP convention as well, especially from Mitt and Ann Romney. But the Democrats were trying to develop this major theme that Republicans are waging a war on women and want to take away all their rights. Bizarrely, actress Kerry Washington claimed that Republicans were trying to take away women's rights to vote, to get an education, to access health care, and to receive equal pay (and was wildly applauded for it too). Ironically, a video clip of an Obama speech shown early in the convention warned that women "are not an interest group." Yet, throughout the entire convention, women were treated like an interest group. They were assumed to be a monolithic group whose chief concerns are abortion on demand and free contraception guaranteed by the government. Karol Markowicz has a great piece in the New York Post in which she notes the condescension in all of this "painful pandering." Yet, the Party of Women did a lengthy tribute video showcasing the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who drunkenly drove a woman into the bay and then left her to drown. And they chose noted respecter-of-women Bill Clinton to give the keynote address for the second evening of the convention. Do they think women don't care about this kind of behavior from their politicians as long as those politicians hold the right position on abortion?
3. Class Warfare
And then there was a heaping dose of class warfare. I heard repeated attacks on Mitt Romney's personal wealth from several different speakers. One of the worst offenders was former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who claimed that Romney was unpatriotic for earning overseas profits and having overseas investments and who made nasty and completely unfounded accusations about what Romney was hiding in his unreleased tax returns. He also lied by claiming that Romney's tax plan would eliminate capital gains taxes on Romney's own income. Michelle Obama spoke later that evening and assured everyone that she and her husband have never resented wealth. OKKKK...she must have missed the rest of the convention. On the second night, three former Bain Capital employees spoke and talked about how cruel and heartless Romney was for taking over their companies and then laying them off. (Fact-checkers discovered that one of the three was a union negotiator who never even worked for Bain.) Ironically, they kept saying that they understood that in the real world there are winners and losers and that sometimes it is inevitable that unprofitable companies must shut down, but they turned around and attacked Romney in the next breath for participating in such capitalist activities. and "fiscal responsibility." Throughout the convention there were allusions to "fairness" and Republican attacks on the "working class" (by such luminaries as the presidents of the UAW and the AFL-CIO) and claims that the "system was rigged" against those working class people (Elizabeth Warren). It was grievance politics at its finest.
4. Controversy Over God and Jerusalem
One thing that deservedly got a lot of attention was the brouhaha at the convention over changes to the party platform. It came out on the first day of the convention that Democrats had removed the only remaining reference to God in the party platform (it was a reference to people realizing their "God-given potential" and they took out the word "God-given") and had also removed language in the platform that recognized Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel, called for the increasing isolation of terrorist group Hamas, and acknowledged the right of Israel to exist as a nation. The platform also inserted wording that said the Democrats support legal and taxpayer-funded third-trimester abortion. The removal of God and Jerusalem from the platform, in particular, garnered a lot of attention. Senator Richard Durbin flipped out when asked about these changes on Fox News and started ranting about how people were trying to claim the Democratic Party was "godless." Realizing that these changes made their party look extreme, the Democratic leadership decided to call for a voice vote to reinsert the God and Jerusalem references into the platform. The vote required a two-thirds majority vote of "yes" for the motion to pass, but the delegates on the convention floor appeared to be equally divided between yes and no. The presiding officer seemed startled and unsure of what to do so he tried the vote again two more times, with the exact same results. After the third time, he summarily announced that two-thirds of the delegates had voted yes and claimed the motion had passed, and the crowd booed loudly in response. This resulted in the headline "Democrats boo God, Jerusalem." Of course, it's one of the worst-kept secrets in politics that many liberal activists are hostile toward the state of Israel. Hadley Arkes pointed out on National Review Online that "God-given" rights are a key component of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most fundamental beliefs underlying the American republic. If we give ourselves rights or if those rights are granted to us by leaders or governments, they can just as easily be taken away. The reason our rights are unalienable and permanent is that they are given to us by our Creator God. Once we lose that notion of human dignity and worth due to the image of God, our rights are in grave danger.
Here is a video of the floor vote and reaction of the delegates:
I watched Sandra Fluke's speech on the second night of the convention. I was stunned that this woman was given not just a speaking slot, but a coveted prime-time speaking slot during the 10:00 hour, just a few minutes before keynoter Bill Clinton. What is her qualification for being a prime-time speaker? She's a 30-year-old graduate student and "activist" with no major accomplishments or life experiences other than law school. She's only famous because she gave laughable testimony before a few Democratic congressmen about the financial hardships she and her rich friends faced because the health insurance provided for them by their Catholic law school did not cover their birth control, and she was turned into a sympathetic victim because Rush Limbaugh insulted her. All this happened months ago, and the Democratic Party is still trying to use her as a tool in their "war on women" meme. Her speech seemed angry to me and she continued to milk her victim status, complaining about how she was "verbally attacked" and attacking Romney for not defending her. The whole spectacle sickened me to my stomach...it all seemed so silly and childish and unserious. I was glad to see I was not the only one who felt this way about her speech. Jay Nordlinger expressed so many of my feelings in his excellent NRO post about her. And I was surprised to read these strong words from usually mild-mannered Peggy Noonan:
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool. And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
6. Other Observations
Lincoln Chafee, former Republican, said he left the GOP and now supports Obama because he believes in "fiscal responsibility"! I'm really curious about what his definition of "fiscal responsibility is . . . . The DNC showed a video the first night of the convention that had this priceless line: "Government is the only thing we all belong to." Who knew we were all owned by the government? . . . . Several speakers, including first night keynote speaker Julian Castro, claimed that Americans are better off now than they were four years ago. I can't believe they think this is a winning message . . . . The sheer nastiness and pettiness of the repeated and sometimes personal attacks on Romney really struck me and stood in sharp contrast to the Republican Convention last week. Several of the GOP speakers went out of their way to say that Obama was not a bad person and all attacks on Obama stayed focused on his record. By contrast, Democratic speakers accused Romney and the Republicans of all sorts of ridiculous things. They even used their tribute video of Ted Kennedy to make fun of Romney. And even Obama in his acceptance speech took cheap shots against Romney such as attacking a relatively minor gaffe he made during a trip to London. Democrats clearly demonstrated they have no class . . . . Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the DNC, managed to demonstrate once again her extreme dishonesty and lack of class. During the convention, she claimed in an interview that the Israeli ambassador had told her that Republican attitudes toward Israel were dangerous. When the Israeli ambassador angrily denied ever saying such a thing, Wasserman Schultz subsequently denied ever saying that he had - until an audio tape of her initial claim surfaced. When confronted with her two blatant lies, she refused to apologize . . . . And then there were all the extreme comments made by top delegates. The Palm Beach County Democratic Party Chairman said that fundamentalist Christians want Jews to die. The South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman compared the state's GOP governor Nikki Haley to Hitler's mistress Eva Braun. The chairman of the California delegation compared Paul Ryan to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
I was struck by the crowd at the convention. They seemed so easily manipulated, wildly cheering even the most extreme statements made by the speakers (such as the Republicans wanting to take away women's right to vote). When Nancy Keenan gave a strident, sharp-toned, and flatly prosaic and unemotional speech on abortion, the cameras showed women in the audience crying. I couldn't help but ask myself what was wrong with these people. Daniel Foster of NRO summed up my thoughts this way: "Republicans don’t love Mitt Romney the way Democrats love Barack Obama. And thank God. Interacting with the delegates in Charlotte and watching them on the floor was scary. Not in a I’m-going-to-be-jumped way — they seem like good and decent folks — but in a holy-crap-these-people-worship-this-guy way. I’m pretty Hamiltonian, but I’m constitutionally incapable of revering a politician the way some of these folks revere Obama."
I was struck by the crowd at the convention. They seemed so easily manipulated, wildly cheering even the most extreme statements made by the speakers (such as the Republicans wanting to take away women's right to vote). When Nancy Keenan gave a strident, sharp-toned, and flatly prosaic and unemotional speech on abortion, the cameras showed women in the audience crying. I couldn't help but ask myself what was wrong with these people. Daniel Foster of NRO summed up my thoughts this way: "Republicans don’t love Mitt Romney the way Democrats love Barack Obama. And thank God. Interacting with the delegates in Charlotte and watching them on the floor was scary. Not in a I’m-going-to-be-jumped way — they seem like good and decent folks — but in a holy-crap-these-people-worship-this-guy way. I’m pretty Hamiltonian, but I’m constitutionally incapable of revering a politician the way some of these folks revere Obama."
Bottom line: this was a stridently left-wing convention that reflects the extreme beliefs of the leadership and the base of the Democratic Party. On everything from abortion to health care to illegal immigration to welfare to taxes to same-sex marriage to our free market capitalistic economic system to the power of unions to the role of government to welfare, the party doubled down on left-wing ideology. David Harsanyi summed up the convention pretty well in his column in the New Hampshire Union-Leader. I also liked Peggy Noonan's description of "the Democrats' soft extremism" in her Wall Street Journal column. I will never for the life of me understand how anyone with Christian values or traditional American values would want to be associated with the Democratic Party I saw on display this week in Charlotte.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Republican Convention - Days 2 & 3
I also got to watch the better part of the last two evenings of the Republican convention last week. With the exception of Rand Paul's rousing speech early in the evening in which gave a surprisingly strong endorsement of Romney, the only speeches of the second evening that stood out to me were the final three -- Condoleezza Rice, Susana Martinez, and Paul Ryan. I was only half paying attention at the beginning of Rice's speech, but started listening more closely when I realized that she was giving a very eloquent speech that was dazzling the crowd. She spoke more about domestic policy, including energy and education policy, than I expected. She spoke movingly of the incredible story of her life, rising from her childhood in segregated Mississippi to become Secretary of State of the United States. Among her best lines were these:
I also watched most of the final night of the convention, which mostly featured a series of tributes from individuals who know Romney personally or who have worked with him professionally. While I do not accept Mormonism as a legitimate form of Christianity, I couldn't help but be impressed by several individuals from Romney's church who movingly described the kindness, compassion, and love which Romney displayed in helping them through some incredibly tragic circumstances. Those testimonies convinced me that Romney is not just a successful businessman, but also a deeply caring person who has spent his life helping others. I was more familiar with Romney's experience founding and growing Bain Capital, turning around the Salt Lake City Olympics, and governing Massachusetts, but still found myself more impressed than I expected with the full weight of Romney's experiences and accomplishments throughout his life. There is no doubt that Romney is a man who is eminently qualified to be president.
In between these tributes and Romney's acceptance speech were wedged two very different speakers: Clint Eastwood (!) and Senator Marco Rubio. Eastwood's "speech" was actually more of an unscripted comedic routine which seemed a bit confused at times but got in some very effective shots at Obama. Eastwood dared to do what no one else at the convention would or could: make fun of Obama (and Biden of course). Despite a couple of crude allusions, I enjoyed the routine and would guess it played much better outside of the beltway than it did with professional pundits. Rubio's speech was somewhat overshadowed by Eastwood but completely met my high expectations. Among the most effective moments of his speech were his comment that "Obama was not a bad person, just a bad president" and his list of Obama's tax-and-spend, socialistic policies followed by the statement that "these are tired and old big government ideas. Ideas that people come to America to get away from." (This last was especially effective coming from the son of Cuban immigrants.)
There was nothing really wrong with Romney's acceptance speech, but I can't say that it excited me very much. Many pundits seemed genuinely impressed with Romney's delivery and even stated that it was the best speech of his career. I guess I have mostly heard Romney speak in debate forums rather than straight speeches, but I didn't find his delivery very impressive. He seemed stiff and out-of-sync with the audience for at least the first half of the speech. He seemed like he was rushing through the speech too much and failing to articulate his words clearly and pause appropriately, although he seemed to relax and did much better in the second half of his remarks. Also, the speech was clearly designed to soften and humanize Romney, which may have appealed to independent and undecided voters but wasn't really what I was looking for. The first half to two-thirds of the speech was pretty non-ideological, but he did finally get more into specifics about his beliefs and policies toward the end of the speech. It was all from 30,000 feet, of course, but you generally don't get too specific in a convention speech anyway. Anyway, I did think Romney drew some effective contrasts between himself and Obama, especially when he contrasted Obama's grandiose promises from 2008 about slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet with his simple, workman-like promises to "help you and your family" by getting the economy moving again.
Although Romney's speech wasn't overly exciting to a staunch partisan like myself, I expect it helped Romney quite a bit with those all-important independent and undecided voters. (He's already convinced me to vote for him.) I don't know how anyone who is not already a hardened partisan could watch the tributes to Romney from people who have known and worked with him and then the speech from Romney himself and conclude that he is anything other than a decent, compassionate, hard-working, trustworthy, and successful man. Certainly it would be hard to conclude he was anything close to that monstrous caricature the Obama campaign has been pushing of a cold, ruthless businessman who destroyed businesses and individuals for the fun of it at Bain Capital while committing felonies and murdering people. If the bar is whether this guy is a reasonable alternative to Obama, he more than crossed that hurdle. If people are looking for someone who is likable and trustworthy, someone they can feel comfortable with on a personal level, I think Romney helped himself significantly with the last night of his convention.
I plan to watch at least a little bit of the Democratic convention this week -- or at least as much of it as I can stomach. I want to try to compare the themes and emphases of the two conventions, as well as the speakers themselves. I already know what I think of the Democratic Party, but I'm interested to see whether they are going to provide any kind of positive case for Obama whatsoever and also how much of an effort they are going to make to appeal to the center. I certainly have seen little of either a positive case or a centrist appeal from this president's campaign so far.
Ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement. We have not believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well. We have not been envious of one another and jealous of each other’s success. Ours has been a belief in opportunity and a constant battle — long and hard — to extend the benefits of the American dream to all — without regard to circumstances of birth.Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico and the first female Hispanic governor in the U.S., spoke next and had the crowd and me cracking up with this story:
Before I ran for District Attorney, two Republicans invited my husband and me to lunch. And I knew a party-switch was exactly what they wanted.
So, I told Chuck, we'll be polite, enjoy a free lunch and then say goodbye.
But we talked about issues-they never used the words Republican, or Democrat, conservative or liberal.
We talked about many issues, like welfare - is it a way of life, or a hand-up?
Talked about the size of government -- how much should it tax families and small businesses?
And when we left that lunch, we got in the car and I looked over at Chuck and said, "I'll be damned, we're Republicans!"But I thought the best speech, not just of the night, but of the entire convention, was Paul Ryan's acceptance speech for nomination for Vice President. It was a brilliantly written and substantive speech and was delivered masterfully. It was one of the most devastating critiques of Obama's first term that I have ever heard -- certainly the most effective attack on Obama's record that I heard during the entire convention. Ryan cut through all the noise and explained simply and clearly why Obama has been a failure. And he did so without coming across as nasty or angry. He also managed to sound optimistic about our future and sincere about seeking to address the big problems we face, and he managed to weave in some very personal moments about his family and background as well as some lines that had me laughing out loud. After so many years of having lackluster speakers on the Republican presidential and vice-presidential tickets, it is so refreshing to have someone on the 2012 ticket who can communicate conservative ideas effectively! If you have not had the opportunity to watch Ryan's acceptance speech yet, I highly recommend watching it below:
One sign of the effectiveness of Ryan's speech was the fact that Obama and the media immediately began attacking Ryan for the supposed lies in his speech. A sample media hit job on Ryan is this Yahoo article. Not surprisingly, Yahoo was wrong and Ryan was right. On every one of these points:
- Ryan claimed ObamaCare took $716 billion out of Medicare. That is TRUE. Of course the cuts "do not affect Medicare recipients directly," if by directly you mean that ObamaCare doesn’t literally pull cash out of people’s wallets. ObamaCare takes money away from the Medicare program, which means lower payments to insurance plans and health providers, which means seniors’ health coverage will be directly affected. This is an actual cut to Medicare. The budget endorsed by the Romney-Ryan ticket eliminates those cuts to Medicare. So this cut by Obama would be reversed by Romney.
- Ryan claimed that that the stimulus was political patronage and cronyism that did nothing to get the economy going. That is TRUE. Even Obama was forced to admit those "shovel ready" jobs weren’t so shovel ready after all. Ryan opposed the stimulus bill and voted against it. AFTER IT WAS ALREADY PASSED, he tried to make sure his district wasn’t left out. That doesn’t disprove what Ryan said about the stimulus. It just means that if the stimulus money was going to be spent anyway, he didn’t want his district to be left out. But he didn’t want it to be passed in the first place.
- That plant in Janesville, WI that Ryan mentioned was partially shut down in December 2008, before Obama took office, but it continued production on a much smaller scale until April 2009, when it was permanently and fully closed. Obama made campaign promises about saving the plant, but it was shut down on his watch and never re-opened. Obama made promises he couldn’t keep. What Ryan said was accurate.
- What Ryan said about Obama doing nothing with regard to the debt commissions is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Ryan voted no on the final findings of the debt commission – that is also true. That was because the commission kept ObamaCare, and Ryan is opposed to ObamaCare. However, Ryan did work with the commission on various ideas and he did propose an alternate budget that incorporated many elements of the Simpson-Bowles commission. His alternate solution was actually praised by Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chair of the commission. Obama, by contrast, completely ignored his own debt commission and proposed another completely unserious budget that did nothing about the debt at all. It got zero votes in both the House and the Senate. While Ryan disagreed with the debt commission’s conclusion, he worked hard to come up with alternate solutions even though he is only one out of 435 House members. Obama is the president with more responsibility than anyone else, and yet did nothing to come up with any serious solutions. Ryan’s attack was not only true, it was also completely fair.
I also watched most of the final night of the convention, which mostly featured a series of tributes from individuals who know Romney personally or who have worked with him professionally. While I do not accept Mormonism as a legitimate form of Christianity, I couldn't help but be impressed by several individuals from Romney's church who movingly described the kindness, compassion, and love which Romney displayed in helping them through some incredibly tragic circumstances. Those testimonies convinced me that Romney is not just a successful businessman, but also a deeply caring person who has spent his life helping others. I was more familiar with Romney's experience founding and growing Bain Capital, turning around the Salt Lake City Olympics, and governing Massachusetts, but still found myself more impressed than I expected with the full weight of Romney's experiences and accomplishments throughout his life. There is no doubt that Romney is a man who is eminently qualified to be president.
In between these tributes and Romney's acceptance speech were wedged two very different speakers: Clint Eastwood (!) and Senator Marco Rubio. Eastwood's "speech" was actually more of an unscripted comedic routine which seemed a bit confused at times but got in some very effective shots at Obama. Eastwood dared to do what no one else at the convention would or could: make fun of Obama (and Biden of course). Despite a couple of crude allusions, I enjoyed the routine and would guess it played much better outside of the beltway than it did with professional pundits. Rubio's speech was somewhat overshadowed by Eastwood but completely met my high expectations. Among the most effective moments of his speech were his comment that "Obama was not a bad person, just a bad president" and his list of Obama's tax-and-spend, socialistic policies followed by the statement that "these are tired and old big government ideas. Ideas that people come to America to get away from." (This last was especially effective coming from the son of Cuban immigrants.)
There was nothing really wrong with Romney's acceptance speech, but I can't say that it excited me very much. Many pundits seemed genuinely impressed with Romney's delivery and even stated that it was the best speech of his career. I guess I have mostly heard Romney speak in debate forums rather than straight speeches, but I didn't find his delivery very impressive. He seemed stiff and out-of-sync with the audience for at least the first half of the speech. He seemed like he was rushing through the speech too much and failing to articulate his words clearly and pause appropriately, although he seemed to relax and did much better in the second half of his remarks. Also, the speech was clearly designed to soften and humanize Romney, which may have appealed to independent and undecided voters but wasn't really what I was looking for. The first half to two-thirds of the speech was pretty non-ideological, but he did finally get more into specifics about his beliefs and policies toward the end of the speech. It was all from 30,000 feet, of course, but you generally don't get too specific in a convention speech anyway. Anyway, I did think Romney drew some effective contrasts between himself and Obama, especially when he contrasted Obama's grandiose promises from 2008 about slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet with his simple, workman-like promises to "help you and your family" by getting the economy moving again.
Although Romney's speech wasn't overly exciting to a staunch partisan like myself, I expect it helped Romney quite a bit with those all-important independent and undecided voters. (He's already convinced me to vote for him.) I don't know how anyone who is not already a hardened partisan could watch the tributes to Romney from people who have known and worked with him and then the speech from Romney himself and conclude that he is anything other than a decent, compassionate, hard-working, trustworthy, and successful man. Certainly it would be hard to conclude he was anything close to that monstrous caricature the Obama campaign has been pushing of a cold, ruthless businessman who destroyed businesses and individuals for the fun of it at Bain Capital while committing felonies and murdering people. If the bar is whether this guy is a reasonable alternative to Obama, he more than crossed that hurdle. If people are looking for someone who is likable and trustworthy, someone they can feel comfortable with on a personal level, I think Romney helped himself significantly with the last night of his convention.
I plan to watch at least a little bit of the Democratic convention this week -- or at least as much of it as I can stomach. I want to try to compare the themes and emphases of the two conventions, as well as the speakers themselves. I already know what I think of the Democratic Party, but I'm interested to see whether they are going to provide any kind of positive case for Obama whatsoever and also how much of an effort they are going to make to appeal to the center. I certainly have seen little of either a positive case or a centrist appeal from this president's campaign so far.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Republican Convention -- Night 1
I watched most of the first night of the Republican National Convention yesterday. It is always exciting for me to hear speeches from some of the best and brightest political leaders around the country who also happen to largely share my values. The two most significant speeches of the evening were the keynote address by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the comments of Mitt Romney's wife of 43 years, Ann Romney. Christie toned down the attacks on Obama more than I expected, and some criticized his speech for appearing to focus more on himself than Mitt Romney. Still, Christie is a great speaker, and he seemed to see his role as highlighting the serious challenges that our country faces and drawing contrasts between the two parties and their approaches to these challenges. Here was one of the high points of his speech:
Bill O'Reilly had an interesting Talking Points Memo Monday night in which he compared the lineup of speakers between the Republican and Democratic conventions. It seems a little hard to avoid the conclusion that the Democratic convention is highlighting more extreme political views than the Republican convention, and also that the Democratic convention is quite a bit less serious when it comes to substantive policy. On the first night of the Republican convention, I was struck by the high caliber of the speakers throughout the evening. In addition to Christie, there were several other governors who had compelling stories to tell about the success of conservative policies in their states: John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and Brian Sandoval of Nevada. I enjoyed listening to constitutional lawyer Ted Cruz, a second generation Cuban immigrant and articulate Tea Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas. One of my favorite speakers of the evening was Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, who landed some of the most effective blows against Obama. She pointed out that the Obama Administration had sued her state for attempting to enforce illegal immigration laws and also for its voter ID law, and that Obama's National Labor Relations Board had attempted to block Boeing from opening a new plant in the state simply because of its right-to-work laws. There was tremendous ethnic diversity on stage throughout the evening (although MSNBC viewers would never know it, since that network made sure to cut away from live coverage of the convention at every point at which an ethnic minority was speaking with the exception of Haley).
But I would have to say my favorite speech was Artur Davis, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama and one of the co-chairs of Obama's 2008 campaign. Davis, the only politically moderate member of the Congressional Black Caucus, became disillusioned with Obama quickly, partially as a result of ObamaCare. He has now joined the Republican Party and gave a rousing speech in support of Romney. I think he did a great job appealing to disillusioned Obama supporters. You can watch his 10-minute speech below.
We believe in telling seniors the truth about our overburdened entitlements.
We know seniors not only want these programs to survive, but they just as badly want them secured for their grandchildren.
Seniors are not selfish.
They believe seniors will always put themselves ahead of their grandchildren. So they prey on their vulnerabilities and scare them with misinformation for the cynical purpose of winning the next election.
Their plan: whistle a happy tune while driving us off the fiscal cliff, as long as they are behind the wheel of power.
We believe that the majority of teachers in America know our system must be reformed to put students first so that America can compete....
They believe in pitting unions against teachers, educators against parents, and lobbyists against children.
They believe in teachers' unions.
We believe in teachers.Ann Romney gave a great speech, especially when you remember that unlike most of the speakers she is not a politician. She was clearly trying hard -- perhaps too hard -- to appeal to women, but she spoke from the heart and gave a beautiful tribute to her husband. She pointed out that she and Mitt started out their life together in a tiny basement apartment and worked hard to earn their success. She said he would "work harder than anyone" to turn the country around and drew loud applause when she said, "Mitt doesn’t like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point.” She also had this great line: "We're too smart to know there aren't easy answers. But we're not dumb enough to accept that there aren't better answers."
Bill O'Reilly had an interesting Talking Points Memo Monday night in which he compared the lineup of speakers between the Republican and Democratic conventions. It seems a little hard to avoid the conclusion that the Democratic convention is highlighting more extreme political views than the Republican convention, and also that the Democratic convention is quite a bit less serious when it comes to substantive policy. On the first night of the Republican convention, I was struck by the high caliber of the speakers throughout the evening. In addition to Christie, there were several other governors who had compelling stories to tell about the success of conservative policies in their states: John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and Brian Sandoval of Nevada. I enjoyed listening to constitutional lawyer Ted Cruz, a second generation Cuban immigrant and articulate Tea Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas. One of my favorite speakers of the evening was Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, who landed some of the most effective blows against Obama. She pointed out that the Obama Administration had sued her state for attempting to enforce illegal immigration laws and also for its voter ID law, and that Obama's National Labor Relations Board had attempted to block Boeing from opening a new plant in the state simply because of its right-to-work laws. There was tremendous ethnic diversity on stage throughout the evening (although MSNBC viewers would never know it, since that network made sure to cut away from live coverage of the convention at every point at which an ethnic minority was speaking with the exception of Haley).
But I would have to say my favorite speech was Artur Davis, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama and one of the co-chairs of Obama's 2008 campaign. Davis, the only politically moderate member of the Congressional Black Caucus, became disillusioned with Obama quickly, partially as a result of ObamaCare. He has now joined the Republican Party and gave a rousing speech in support of Romney. I think he did a great job appealing to disillusioned Obama supporters. You can watch his 10-minute speech below.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
My Take on the Todd Akin Fiasco
I have been following the Todd Akin controversy closely over the past week or so, even though I haven't posted anything about it until now. I'm sure most of you have read or heard about the comments of Akin, the newly minted Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Missouri. For those who haven't, here is what he said last week in response to an interview question regarding his position on the legality of abortion in the case of rape:
While some Christian conservatives such as Mike Huckabee and the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins have been vocal in their defense of Akin, I think he made a very stupid and damaging error. First of all, he used the truly awful phrase "legitimate rape." Second, he made a statement about female biology that appears to be simply false, or at least has no scientific evidence to support it. Third, he addressed one of the most controversial and emotionally charged political issues of our day in an incredibly dismissive and insensitive way that seemed to imply that he questions the validity of any rape claim that involves pregnancy. Fourth, his comments have played right into the hands of Democrats who are peddling the idea of a GOP war on women and have helped to make the issue of abortion in the case of rape a key issue of the national campaign (which puts Republicans at a disadvantage and is extremely unhelpful for those of us who care about defeating Obama). And even his apology seemed driven more by political necessity than genuine awareness of his error.
Now I don't deny that there is an outrageous double standard in how the media covers gaffes and inappropriate comments by conservatives compared to liberals. Joe Biden (race baiting), Harry Reid (too numerous to mention), Barbara Boxer (a baby gets legal protection from being killed once it is brought home from the hospital), Patty Murray (Osama bin Laden is respected in the Muslim community because he has helped to build day care centers), numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- all of these people have made comments far worse than Akin's and continue to be highly-respected members of the Democratic Party. (And if we want to talk about people who disrespect women -- well, look no further than the man giving the keynote address at the Democratic Convention this year, Bill Clinton.) Akin has been unfairly attacked as being pro-rape or anti-woman, and to claim that his statement disqualifies him from ever holding federal office seems pretty over the top to me. Nevertheless, I think his statement was ignorant and insensitive, and he has no one to blame for this controversy but himself.
This situation is about something much bigger than Todd Akin and his career. It is about defeating a very liberal (and staunchly pro-abortion) Democratic senator in a conservative-leaning state, which is a key stepping stone to a conservative majority in the U.S. Senate that will enable our country to repeal ObamaCare and confirm judges that respect the Constitution. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the future of our country depends at least partly on the outcome of this election, and we cannot afford to throw away a winnable Senate seat because of a stupid comment like this. Akin is suffering from a severe self-inflicted wound and should have stepped aside in favor of a stronger candidate who could win this seat. His dogged refusal to do so demonstrates his own selfishness and arrogance. He is putting his own career before the good of the country.
I think the aspect of this story that makes me most angry is the damage that Akin has done to the pro-life cause and to the conservative brand. The Left has tried for decades to paint social conservatives as ignorant, extreme, and insensitive toward women, and they are taking full advantage of this opportunity to make Akin the face of the pro-life movement. The Left wants to talk a lot about the 1% of U.S. abortions resulting from rape and incest and to ignore the other 99% of U.S. abortions. Todd Akin is happy to oblige. Also, he is now whining that he is a martyr for the pro-life cause and that he will stay in the race in order to make abortion the central issue of the campaign. Akin is no martyr for the pro-life cause -- this uproar has nothing to do with the fact that he is pro-life and everything to do with his ham-handed approach to discussing rape and pregnancies resulting from rape. And I don't want Akin basing his campaign on abortion because I don't think he is a good spokesman for the pro-life movement. If we are going to change hearts and minds on abortion -- especially abortion due to rape -- we have to be able to talk about it with sensitivity and compassion.
Having said all that, the Democratic response to this has been ridiculous. They have been falsely trying to tie Akin closely to the Republican presidential ticket, even going so far as to call it the "Romney/Ryan/Akin" ticket. Their spokesmen keep saying that Akin speaks for the party and his views are representative of the party as a whole, even though he and his comments have been condemned by the entire party leadership and most GOP officeholders and candidates. If you were listen to media coverage and Democratic talking points over the past week, you might conclude that Todd Akin was a bigger issue than the economy, the budget, and the national debt!
Democrats have claimed repeatedly that Paul Ryan is anti-woman and shares identical views to Akin's. They are referring primarily, of course, to the fact that both Akin and Ryan are pro-life without exceptions for rape and incest. These Democratic claims are misleading in a couple of ways. First, they are trying to unfairly associate Ryan with Akin's statements about pregnancy resulting from rape (statements which Ryan has condemned). Akin's problem was not that he is against abortion in the case of rape -- that has been and continues to be the position of many Republican politicians including Ronald Reagan -- but rather in the way that he spoke about pregnancies resulting from rape. It would be like someone claiming that a random senator was the equivalent of David Duke because he happened to hold the same position on illegal immigration that Duke does. The second reason these claims are misleading is that they attribute false positions to Ryan. For example, Ryan has not supported a bill that would ban abortions due to rape or incest. His positions on abortion-related issues are completely mainstream pro-life Republican positions. Ramesh Ponnuru provides more details about these distortions of Ryan's record here and here.
As I mentioned in a previous post with that video of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Romney has made it clear he is pro-life but supports exceptions for rape and incest, which puts him well within the mainstream of American opinion on abortion. According to Gallup, nearly 60% of Americans think abortion should illegal under most circumstances. Yet, in the wake of Akin, the Democrats are trying to portray the Romney/Ryan ticket as extreme when it comes to abortion. Democrats have attacked the Republican platform on abortion as extreme because it does not specify an exception with regard to rape or incest and have blamed Romney for this, even though the language in the platform about abortion is the identical language that has been in the platform for many years.
And apparently, the Democrats have decided to make Todd Akin and abortion a major focus of their convention. (Or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz would say, "women's right to make their own reproductive choices." Democrats are so clever with their abortion code!) They have given Sandra Fluke and the presidents of the National Abortion Rights and Reproductive League and Planned Parenthood key speaking slots. (And they say Republican are the ones obsessed with abortion!) All these women believe, like Obama, that abortion should be legal at any time, for any reason, up until the date of birth. And this viewpoint is shared by a grand total of 12% of the American public, according to Gallup. Also according to Gallup, less than 1% of American voters list abortion as their most important issue . But don't worry -- the Democrats are going to make it a centerpiece of their convention. It's pretty easy to see how this could backfire on the Democrats, big time.
By the way, I do believe abortion is the killing of a human life, even if the baby was conceived as a result of rape. Since abortions due to rape are such a tiny percentage of the overall number of abortions, I am comfortable with an exception for rape in pro-life bills. But I enjoyed reading National Review's symposium on the topic of abortion and rape. There is an argument to make against abortion in the case of rape, and it is a compassionate one.
It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.Needless to say, this "legitimate rape" comment was quickly seized on by the Democrats and the media and became front page news in newspapers around the country. Akin issued an apology for "misspeaking" but the damage was done and Republicans all across the country have had to distance themselves from him and his comments, including Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Despite calls from Romney, numerous Republican elected officials, Tea Party groups, and conservative pundits and publications for Akin to drop out of the race, he steadfastly refused to do so. Despite cratering poll numbers and lack of financial support from the National Republican Senate Committee and SuperPAC's like American Crossroads, Akin (I am convinced) will stay in the race all the way to the end.
While some Christian conservatives such as Mike Huckabee and the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins have been vocal in their defense of Akin, I think he made a very stupid and damaging error. First of all, he used the truly awful phrase "legitimate rape." Second, he made a statement about female biology that appears to be simply false, or at least has no scientific evidence to support it. Third, he addressed one of the most controversial and emotionally charged political issues of our day in an incredibly dismissive and insensitive way that seemed to imply that he questions the validity of any rape claim that involves pregnancy. Fourth, his comments have played right into the hands of Democrats who are peddling the idea of a GOP war on women and have helped to make the issue of abortion in the case of rape a key issue of the national campaign (which puts Republicans at a disadvantage and is extremely unhelpful for those of us who care about defeating Obama). And even his apology seemed driven more by political necessity than genuine awareness of his error.
Now I don't deny that there is an outrageous double standard in how the media covers gaffes and inappropriate comments by conservatives compared to liberals. Joe Biden (race baiting), Harry Reid (too numerous to mention), Barbara Boxer (a baby gets legal protection from being killed once it is brought home from the hospital), Patty Murray (Osama bin Laden is respected in the Muslim community because he has helped to build day care centers), numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- all of these people have made comments far worse than Akin's and continue to be highly-respected members of the Democratic Party. (And if we want to talk about people who disrespect women -- well, look no further than the man giving the keynote address at the Democratic Convention this year, Bill Clinton.) Akin has been unfairly attacked as being pro-rape or anti-woman, and to claim that his statement disqualifies him from ever holding federal office seems pretty over the top to me. Nevertheless, I think his statement was ignorant and insensitive, and he has no one to blame for this controversy but himself.
This situation is about something much bigger than Todd Akin and his career. It is about defeating a very liberal (and staunchly pro-abortion) Democratic senator in a conservative-leaning state, which is a key stepping stone to a conservative majority in the U.S. Senate that will enable our country to repeal ObamaCare and confirm judges that respect the Constitution. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the future of our country depends at least partly on the outcome of this election, and we cannot afford to throw away a winnable Senate seat because of a stupid comment like this. Akin is suffering from a severe self-inflicted wound and should have stepped aside in favor of a stronger candidate who could win this seat. His dogged refusal to do so demonstrates his own selfishness and arrogance. He is putting his own career before the good of the country.
I think the aspect of this story that makes me most angry is the damage that Akin has done to the pro-life cause and to the conservative brand. The Left has tried for decades to paint social conservatives as ignorant, extreme, and insensitive toward women, and they are taking full advantage of this opportunity to make Akin the face of the pro-life movement. The Left wants to talk a lot about the 1% of U.S. abortions resulting from rape and incest and to ignore the other 99% of U.S. abortions. Todd Akin is happy to oblige. Also, he is now whining that he is a martyr for the pro-life cause and that he will stay in the race in order to make abortion the central issue of the campaign. Akin is no martyr for the pro-life cause -- this uproar has nothing to do with the fact that he is pro-life and everything to do with his ham-handed approach to discussing rape and pregnancies resulting from rape. And I don't want Akin basing his campaign on abortion because I don't think he is a good spokesman for the pro-life movement. If we are going to change hearts and minds on abortion -- especially abortion due to rape -- we have to be able to talk about it with sensitivity and compassion.
Having said all that, the Democratic response to this has been ridiculous. They have been falsely trying to tie Akin closely to the Republican presidential ticket, even going so far as to call it the "Romney/Ryan/Akin" ticket. Their spokesmen keep saying that Akin speaks for the party and his views are representative of the party as a whole, even though he and his comments have been condemned by the entire party leadership and most GOP officeholders and candidates. If you were listen to media coverage and Democratic talking points over the past week, you might conclude that Todd Akin was a bigger issue than the economy, the budget, and the national debt!
Democrats have claimed repeatedly that Paul Ryan is anti-woman and shares identical views to Akin's. They are referring primarily, of course, to the fact that both Akin and Ryan are pro-life without exceptions for rape and incest. These Democratic claims are misleading in a couple of ways. First, they are trying to unfairly associate Ryan with Akin's statements about pregnancy resulting from rape (statements which Ryan has condemned). Akin's problem was not that he is against abortion in the case of rape -- that has been and continues to be the position of many Republican politicians including Ronald Reagan -- but rather in the way that he spoke about pregnancies resulting from rape. It would be like someone claiming that a random senator was the equivalent of David Duke because he happened to hold the same position on illegal immigration that Duke does. The second reason these claims are misleading is that they attribute false positions to Ryan. For example, Ryan has not supported a bill that would ban abortions due to rape or incest. His positions on abortion-related issues are completely mainstream pro-life Republican positions. Ramesh Ponnuru provides more details about these distortions of Ryan's record here and here.
As I mentioned in a previous post with that video of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Romney has made it clear he is pro-life but supports exceptions for rape and incest, which puts him well within the mainstream of American opinion on abortion. According to Gallup, nearly 60% of Americans think abortion should illegal under most circumstances. Yet, in the wake of Akin, the Democrats are trying to portray the Romney/Ryan ticket as extreme when it comes to abortion. Democrats have attacked the Republican platform on abortion as extreme because it does not specify an exception with regard to rape or incest and have blamed Romney for this, even though the language in the platform about abortion is the identical language that has been in the platform for many years.
And apparently, the Democrats have decided to make Todd Akin and abortion a major focus of their convention. (Or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz would say, "women's right to make their own reproductive choices." Democrats are so clever with their abortion code!) They have given Sandra Fluke and the presidents of the National Abortion Rights and Reproductive League and Planned Parenthood key speaking slots. (And they say Republican are the ones obsessed with abortion!) All these women believe, like Obama, that abortion should be legal at any time, for any reason, up until the date of birth. And this viewpoint is shared by a grand total of 12% of the American public, according to Gallup. Also according to Gallup, less than 1% of American voters list abortion as their most important issue . But don't worry -- the Democrats are going to make it a centerpiece of their convention. It's pretty easy to see how this could backfire on the Democrats, big time.
By the way, I do believe abortion is the killing of a human life, even if the baby was conceived as a result of rape. Since abortions due to rape are such a tiny percentage of the overall number of abortions, I am comfortable with an exception for rape in pro-life bills. But I enjoyed reading National Review's symposium on the topic of abortion and rape. There is an argument to make against abortion in the case of rape, and it is a compassionate one.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
So Who Are the Real Extremists On Abortion?
National Review has a great editorial today addressing this question. The facts in this editorial clearly demonstrate the extreme bias of the media in covering this issue. And Rich Lowry has an even more hard-hitting piece on Obama's abortion extremism on the Politico website. I'm glad to see some conservatives pushing back against the Left on this issue.
UPDATE: Wow...take a look at this video. Anderson Cooper of CNN takes Debbie Wasserman Schultz to task for her misquote of an LA Times article to make a false claim that Romney "directed" the Republican National Committee to propose a ban on all abortion as part of the party platform. The truth is that the GOP platform on abortion is the same as it has been for many years. And Romney has made it clear that he supports legalized abortion in cases of rape and incest. The Democrats are insane if they think they can convince the public that Romney is some kind of anti-abortion extremist. Good grief, the guy was pro-choice up until a few years ago and never mentions abortion on the campaign trail. If anything, I have some concerns about how pro-life he really is.
UPDATE: Wow...take a look at this video. Anderson Cooper of CNN takes Debbie Wasserman Schultz to task for her misquote of an LA Times article to make a false claim that Romney "directed" the Republican National Committee to propose a ban on all abortion as part of the party platform. The truth is that the GOP platform on abortion is the same as it has been for many years. And Romney has made it clear that he supports legalized abortion in cases of rape and incest. The Democrats are insane if they think they can convince the public that Romney is some kind of anti-abortion extremist. Good grief, the guy was pro-choice up until a few years ago and never mentions abortion on the campaign trail. If anything, I have some concerns about how pro-life he really is.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Campaign Notes
Joe Biden made the following comment, speaking to an audience more than half black in Danville, VA:
Mitt Romney has been hitting his stride lately on the campaign trail, fighting back against Obama's barrage of negativity. Here's part of what he said at a recent campaign event in Ohio (partly in response to Biden's above quote):
Of course, the media continues to stand as the biggest obstacle to a Romney victory. Shannen Coffin of National Review's The Corner blog points out the biased way in which The Washington Post has covered this back-and-forth between the candidates. There has been little coverage of the Obama team's outrageous claims, but when Romney finally fights back with far less outrageous responses The Post makes a front page news story about how Romney is "lashing out" with some of the "harshest rhetoric of his campaign."
Meanwhile, many in the media have been doing their best to confuse the American public about Paul Ryan and the Medicare debate as well. As an example, Patrick Brennan of National Review points out the dishonesty of CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien in regurgitating false Democratic talking points about Paul Ryan's plan and ObamaCare under the guise of objective fact-checking. It is worth reading Brennan's articles here and here to inform yourself of the kind of subtle bias that we are facing from the media in this campaign season.
Finally, on a somewhat unrelated note, there was a shooting at the Family Research Council's headquarters in Washington, DC yesterday. The shooter was a volunteer for The DC Center for the LGBT Community and shouted out something about FRC's values of hate before wounding a security guard. I think this shooting is significant. Much of the media has been echoing the vicious claims of the gay rights community that Christian groups like the Family Research Council are "hate groups" and homophobic bigots because of their opposition to gay marriage and support for the traditional family. Left-wing groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center even produced a specific listing of "hate groups" that includes the Family Research Council. So what a surprise. The media makes them a huge target, and now a mentally unstable individual steeped in this rhetoric goes out and shoots somebody. Even worse are the multitudes of Twitter responses (well documented by twitchy.com here) that condemn the shooting while suggesting that FRC had it coming to them and even suggesting a moral equivalency between the hatred of the shooter and the "hateful" beliefs of FRC. Unbelievable. I am not one to blame an entire group of people based on the unhinged actions of a single individual, but I think the way the media has tried to tar anyone who believes marriage is between a man and a woman as a hateful bigot is shameful and this shooting may well be a consequence of that.
UPDATE: I assumed that the media would largely ignore the FRC story, but I have actually been surprised how much coverage it seems to have gotten, from the front page of The Washington Post to MSM radio.
Look at what they [Republicans] value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street. They're gonna put y'all back in chains.Both Obama and Biden were subsequently asked about these racially charged remarks and defended them as perfectly appropriate. (Are there any campaign tactics that are not appropriate with these people? Murder accusations against Romney are also Obama-approved.)
Mitt Romney has been hitting his stride lately on the campaign trail, fighting back against Obama's barrage of negativity. Here's part of what he said at a recent campaign event in Ohio (partly in response to Biden's above quote):
In 2008, Candidate Obama said, "if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters." He said, "if you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." And that, he told us, is how, "You make a big election about small things."
That was Candidate Obama describing the strategy that is the now the heart of his campaign.
His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency. Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower.
This is what an angry and desperate Presidency looks like.
President Obama knows better, promised better and America deserves better.
Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces.
If an American president wins that way, we all lose.I think Romney is exactly correct. Obama's re-election strategy all along has been to distract attention from the big issues, destroy his opponents with a barrage of negativity, and divide the American people by pandering to specific racial and gender groups (war on women, amnesty for illegal immigrants, gay marriage, etc.). Romney needs to stay on the attack the rest of the campaign.
Of course, the media continues to stand as the biggest obstacle to a Romney victory. Shannen Coffin of National Review's The Corner blog points out the biased way in which The Washington Post has covered this back-and-forth between the candidates. There has been little coverage of the Obama team's outrageous claims, but when Romney finally fights back with far less outrageous responses The Post makes a front page news story about how Romney is "lashing out" with some of the "harshest rhetoric of his campaign."
Meanwhile, many in the media have been doing their best to confuse the American public about Paul Ryan and the Medicare debate as well. As an example, Patrick Brennan of National Review points out the dishonesty of CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien in regurgitating false Democratic talking points about Paul Ryan's plan and ObamaCare under the guise of objective fact-checking. It is worth reading Brennan's articles here and here to inform yourself of the kind of subtle bias that we are facing from the media in this campaign season.
Finally, on a somewhat unrelated note, there was a shooting at the Family Research Council's headquarters in Washington, DC yesterday. The shooter was a volunteer for The DC Center for the LGBT Community and shouted out something about FRC's values of hate before wounding a security guard. I think this shooting is significant. Much of the media has been echoing the vicious claims of the gay rights community that Christian groups like the Family Research Council are "hate groups" and homophobic bigots because of their opposition to gay marriage and support for the traditional family. Left-wing groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center even produced a specific listing of "hate groups" that includes the Family Research Council. So what a surprise. The media makes them a huge target, and now a mentally unstable individual steeped in this rhetoric goes out and shoots somebody. Even worse are the multitudes of Twitter responses (well documented by twitchy.com here) that condemn the shooting while suggesting that FRC had it coming to them and even suggesting a moral equivalency between the hatred of the shooter and the "hateful" beliefs of FRC. Unbelievable. I am not one to blame an entire group of people based on the unhinged actions of a single individual, but I think the way the media has tried to tar anyone who believes marriage is between a man and a woman as a hateful bigot is shameful and this shooting may well be a consequence of that.
UPDATE: I assumed that the media would largely ignore the FRC story, but I have actually been surprised how much coverage it seems to have gotten, from the front page of The Washington Post to MSM radio.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Government slows recovery
Dr. Tracy Miller, one of my old professors at Grove City College, has a good piece in Forbes entitled "Government Policy Restrains An Economic Recovery Launched by the 2008 Recession." It lays the problems with government interference in the economy out well. It's great to see such clear thinking in a mainstream publication.
Monday, August 13, 2012
The R&R Ticket
Mitt Romney made one of the most important decisions of his campaign on Saturday. He selected Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his Vice Presidential candidate. Who is Paul Ryan, and is he a good pick?
I was very surprised by this pick. I felt quite sure that Romney would make a "safe" choice -- one that would be fairly vanilla and non-controversial. This is because I have felt from the beginning that Romney wanted to coast to victory as the default candidate and felt he could win simply by keeping the focus on Obama's awful economy. Well, I was wrong. Paul Ryan is a "big risk, big reward" type of choice. By picking Ryan, Romney seems to be sending a message that he wants to run an ideas-driven campaign and make this election a stark choice between two visions for the country.
Several cons could be mentioned about Ryan -- he doesn't clearly deliver any state to Romney, he has never won a statewide election, and he like Romney is not overly charismatic. But by far the biggest reason Ryan is a risky choice is because of the budget plans that Ryan has spearheaded in the House. These budgets are the first serious attempt anyone in Washington has made to combat the runaway growth of entitlement spending and to reform programs like Medicare, and they make Ryan an easy target for demagoguery. Democrats now have an opportunity to take the attention away from Obama's dismal record by running Mediscare ads 24/7 targeting seniors. Democrats have had success with this strategy in the past -- most notably in 1995-1996. Seniors are the most reliable voting bloc in the country and comprise an large percentage of voters in several key swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania. If the Democrats are able to convince a significant number of them that Romney & Ryan want to take away their Medicare, then Obama has a clear path to victory despite his poor job approval numbers. That is why so many Democrats expressed glee over Romney's choice and started attacking him even before he was officially announced.
The good news is that the truth is on the side of the GOP on this issue. The facts are that the 2012 Ryan budget, which Romney has endorsed, does not take away anyone's Medicare. No one age 55 or older will be affected at all by the Medicare reforms, and those under age 55 are guaranteed the same health coverage at no extra cost to them under this plan. The plan's cost savings come not from making future Medicare recipients pay more out of pocket for their coverage, but rather from unleashing the power of free market competition into the Medicare system. The only risk associated with Ryan's plan is the risk that it may not reform Medicare enough to completely avert a debt crisis. There can be no debating that it is better than the status quo. Yuval Levin has an outstanding article on National Review's website explaining exactly what Ryan's plan proposes with regard to Medicare and why it is such a good idea. I highly recommend it.
The Democrats are simply lying about Ryan's plan. They have no plan to save Medicare and control entitlement spending. In fact, their beloved ObamaCare raids $700 billion from Medicare. They have no solution themselves, so they are going all in to demagogue a very good solution by the Republican team. The good news is that Romney and his supporting PAC's are flush with cash and should be able to at least match and probably exceed Obama's level of spending over the final two and a half months of the campaign. Republicans have the ability to win this argument and absolutely must do so -- both to win the election and to save our country from a debt crisis. Romney's instincts have always been to play it safe, but he has no choice now but to fight back hard and to win this important debate on the issues.
There are plenty of upsides to having Paul Ryan as the Vice Presidential candidate. He is young and energetic, yet has plenty of experience in government. He helps to unite the Republican base around Romney, since he is a strong fiscal and social conservative. His working class background is a nice contrast to Romney, and he is well-liked on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill. Most importantly, Ryan is a brilliant and innovative thinker who understands the ins and outs of fiscal policy as well as anyone in Washington -- and can articulate his ideas very effectively. Here is a video of Ryan debating Obama at the White House health care summit that shows his impressive grasp of the important issues facing the country.
Perhaps George Will put it best when he said that Romney "chose a running mate whose seriousness about large problems and ideas underscores what the president has become — silly and small." Ryan is an intellectual heavyweight who will help Romney keep the focus of the campaign on the important issues of the economy, repealing ObamaCare, reforming entitlements, controlling spending, and reducing the deficit. Ryan helps to underscore that Obama and the Democrats have no serious plan with regard to the deficit and entitlements. Right now, Obama's team is overconfident. Their non-stop attacks on Romney and Ryan will backfire if Romney and his supporters can effectively communicate their positive vision for the country. If they play their cards right, the electorate will face a stark choice in November between a Republican ticket with real ideas to fix our economy and get our deficit under control and a Democratic ticket with a failed economic record and nothing to offer but blistering negativity. If the American people don't have the sense to reject Obama under those circumstances, then we deserve what we get.
I was very surprised by this pick. I felt quite sure that Romney would make a "safe" choice -- one that would be fairly vanilla and non-controversial. This is because I have felt from the beginning that Romney wanted to coast to victory as the default candidate and felt he could win simply by keeping the focus on Obama's awful economy. Well, I was wrong. Paul Ryan is a "big risk, big reward" type of choice. By picking Ryan, Romney seems to be sending a message that he wants to run an ideas-driven campaign and make this election a stark choice between two visions for the country.
Several cons could be mentioned about Ryan -- he doesn't clearly deliver any state to Romney, he has never won a statewide election, and he like Romney is not overly charismatic. But by far the biggest reason Ryan is a risky choice is because of the budget plans that Ryan has spearheaded in the House. These budgets are the first serious attempt anyone in Washington has made to combat the runaway growth of entitlement spending and to reform programs like Medicare, and they make Ryan an easy target for demagoguery. Democrats now have an opportunity to take the attention away from Obama's dismal record by running Mediscare ads 24/7 targeting seniors. Democrats have had success with this strategy in the past -- most notably in 1995-1996. Seniors are the most reliable voting bloc in the country and comprise an large percentage of voters in several key swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania. If the Democrats are able to convince a significant number of them that Romney & Ryan want to take away their Medicare, then Obama has a clear path to victory despite his poor job approval numbers. That is why so many Democrats expressed glee over Romney's choice and started attacking him even before he was officially announced.
The good news is that the truth is on the side of the GOP on this issue. The facts are that the 2012 Ryan budget, which Romney has endorsed, does not take away anyone's Medicare. No one age 55 or older will be affected at all by the Medicare reforms, and those under age 55 are guaranteed the same health coverage at no extra cost to them under this plan. The plan's cost savings come not from making future Medicare recipients pay more out of pocket for their coverage, but rather from unleashing the power of free market competition into the Medicare system. The only risk associated with Ryan's plan is the risk that it may not reform Medicare enough to completely avert a debt crisis. There can be no debating that it is better than the status quo. Yuval Levin has an outstanding article on National Review's website explaining exactly what Ryan's plan proposes with regard to Medicare and why it is such a good idea. I highly recommend it.
The Democrats are simply lying about Ryan's plan. They have no plan to save Medicare and control entitlement spending. In fact, their beloved ObamaCare raids $700 billion from Medicare. They have no solution themselves, so they are going all in to demagogue a very good solution by the Republican team. The good news is that Romney and his supporting PAC's are flush with cash and should be able to at least match and probably exceed Obama's level of spending over the final two and a half months of the campaign. Republicans have the ability to win this argument and absolutely must do so -- both to win the election and to save our country from a debt crisis. Romney's instincts have always been to play it safe, but he has no choice now but to fight back hard and to win this important debate on the issues.
There are plenty of upsides to having Paul Ryan as the Vice Presidential candidate. He is young and energetic, yet has plenty of experience in government. He helps to unite the Republican base around Romney, since he is a strong fiscal and social conservative. His working class background is a nice contrast to Romney, and he is well-liked on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill. Most importantly, Ryan is a brilliant and innovative thinker who understands the ins and outs of fiscal policy as well as anyone in Washington -- and can articulate his ideas very effectively. Here is a video of Ryan debating Obama at the White House health care summit that shows his impressive grasp of the important issues facing the country.
Perhaps George Will put it best when he said that Romney "chose a running mate whose seriousness about large problems and ideas underscores what the president has become — silly and small." Ryan is an intellectual heavyweight who will help Romney keep the focus of the campaign on the important issues of the economy, repealing ObamaCare, reforming entitlements, controlling spending, and reducing the deficit. Ryan helps to underscore that Obama and the Democrats have no serious plan with regard to the deficit and entitlements. Right now, Obama's team is overconfident. Their non-stop attacks on Romney and Ryan will backfire if Romney and his supporters can effectively communicate their positive vision for the country. If they play their cards right, the electorate will face a stark choice in November between a Republican ticket with real ideas to fix our economy and get our deficit under control and a Democratic ticket with a failed economic record and nothing to offer but blistering negativity. If the American people don't have the sense to reject Obama under those circumstances, then we deserve what we get.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Romney's "War on Women"
According to ABC News, Obama has decided to return to a previous theme of his campaign: Romney and the GOP's "war on women." He is focusing on "women's health issues" during a campaign swing through Colorado and also in a barrage of TV ads running in several key swing states. Introducing him at one of his Colorado rallies was Sandra Fluke, who has become an "activist for women and women's health" since getting her 5 minutes of fame earlier this year from her controversial testimony before members of Congress. Fluke has also penned a column in the Huffington Post entitled "Why I'm Standing With President Obama Today," in which she warns about how "this election decides whether years of struggle for basic health care rights that so many women fought for will be rolled back." In case it wasn't clear enough, she comes back to this line again at the end of the article when she tells us that Romney "promises to turn back the clock on women's rights and our access to health care."
So what exactly have Romney and the GOP done to warrant these charges? According to the articles I linked to, it appears the GOP war on women comes down to three things: Romney's promise to repeal ObamaCare; his opposition to the Department of Health & Human Services mandate that employers must pay for health insurance that includes coverage for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees, even if it violates the employer's religious beliefs; and his support for ending taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Another issue that I have heard Obama talk about is the notion that Romney opposes equal pay for women because of GOP opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which was passed by a Democratic Congress in 2009. Let's look at these issues one at a time.
Of course, it is laughable to reduce the huge issue of ObamaCare to a "women's issue" just because women may get certain "free" benefits as a result of that legislation. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose ObamaCare for the sake of the entire country, including federal spending and deficit concerns, concerns about government control of health care, possible future health care rationing, likely reductions in the quality of care, expanded government power to force people to buy a product, and the burden that the additional taxes and regulations will place on individuals and businesses as well as the economy at large. To boil down this issue to nothing more than free breast cancer screenings for women is silly.
The "contraception mandate" is the second issue Obama is campaigning on. Conservatives are opposed to this mandate because of the government coercion of private businesses and because of the threat to religious liberty by forcing individuals to pay for something that they believe is morally wrong. The handwringing by the Left about how evil Republicans want to "take away women's birth control" is ridiculous. No one wants to ban contraceptives. This is not about whether women should be denied the right to use birth control, but about whether the government should be able to mandate that all of us pay for contraception through our insurance premiums -- and more specifically whether organizations like Catholic hospitals and charities should be forced to pay for contraception for their employees in defiance of their conscience.
It is ironic that Obama and the Democrats have chosen Sandra Fluke as their spokeswoman on this issue. Fluke is from a wealthy, privileged family, attended one of the top law schools in the country, and is virtually guaranteed a six-digit salary. The Democrats like to talk about the 1%. Well, Sandra Fluke is part of the 1%. Yet she whined in her testimony before members of Congress about how unfair it was that she had to pay for her own birth control (based on her free choice to attend a Catholic school) and how her friends (other privileged young women also attending one of the top law schools in the country) were miserable because they were forced to spend up to $3,000 per year on contraceptives. Well cry me a river. A month's supply of birth control can easily be purchased without insurance for $20 or $30. If women need special contraceptive drugs for non-contraceptive medical reasons, religious organizations are willing to provide them with insurance that pays for them. Why should the government mandate that all of us pay higher premiums to finance people's sex lives? No one is trying to tell these women what to do with their own bodies or denying them their right to birth control access. We are just politely asking them to take responsibility for their own choices and pay for their own dang birth control (or get their boyfriends to pay for it, or choose one of many insurance plans that cover contraceptives or one of many employers who pay for such insurance plans). Which brings us to another irony. Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of "wanting the government to get involved in people's bedrooms," yet they are the ones that are injecting government into this issue. Republicans are the ones who want to keep government out of people's bedrooms.
Then there is the issue of federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Democrats have tried hard to paint Planned Parenthood as primarily an organization that provides basic health care for poor women and might provide an abortion or two on the side if necessary. This is completely false, as a March 2011 Chiaroscuro Foundation report demonstrates. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the U.S., performing about 25% of all abortions. The number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood has gone up proportionally to the amount of taxpayer funds provided to it by the federal government. Abortions provide more than 37% of Planned Parenthood's total revenue, and the organization has been aggressively expanding its abortion operations over the past few years. About 98% of all Planned Parenthood services to preganant women are abortion services. In 2009, the organization performed over 332,000 abortions and had only 7,000 prenatal care clients and less than 1,000 adoption referrals (and those non-abortion preganancy services are declining). Planned Parenthood is not a significant primary health care provider for women -- less than 20,000 of its 3 million clients received primary care services. They don't provide mammograms, for example; they only refer their clients for them.
Worst of all, Planned Parenthood is a corrupt organization. It has been found guilty in courts of law for failing to comply with state parental notification laws and for failing to provide informed consent to a 13-year-old girl impregnated by her much older coach. It has covered up cases of statutory rape and incest. Its staff has been caught on video more than once cooperating with sex trafficking of minors and coaching young girls not to reveal the ages of the men who impregnated them. Despite all of this corruption, Planned Parenthood is a $1 billion organization that has the lobbying clout on Capitol Hill to keep the federal dollars flowing into its coffers and has successfully bullied smaller organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation into continuing to fund its abortion-centered operations.
So tell me again, President Obama, why taxpayers should be funding this corrupt abortion provider? And why opposing such funding is "anti-woman"?
Finally, Obama's claim that Romney is against equal pay for women because of GOP opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is ridiculous. For more than 40 years, U.S. law has mandated that men and women be paid equally for equal work. No one on the Republican side, least of all Mitt Romney, is arguing that these laws should be revoked. However, the Lilly Ledbetter Act goes far beyond that by essentially eliminating any time limit on pay discrimination lawsuits. It was named for a woman who lost a sex discrimination case before the Supreme Court because she waited more than 5 years after she found out she was earning less than her male co-workers before bringing her discrimination lawsuit.
Stuart Taylor has a readable and extremely insightful column on this topic in National Journal that I highly recommend. He points out that the Ledbetter law is a bonanza for trial lawyers, but is harmful for business because it makes it "harder than ever for employers to defend themselves against bogus (as well as valid) discrimination claims, effectively adding to the cost of each new hire" and thus indirectly harming workers, both male and female. And there is no need for such legislation, because the data indicates that "the gender gap can be explained to a large extent by nondiscriminatory factors" such as "child-related factors, demographics, academic majors, work experience, and occupational characteristics." While reasonable people may be able to disagree on whether the Ledbetter Act is a good idea or not, it is laughable to claim as Obama does that anyone who opposes it is in favor of discrimination against women.
So in summary, Romney's "war on women" is nothing more than a fiction invented by the Obama campaign to try to peel female votes away from Romney. On each of these issues, Romney's positions are not anti-woman at all, but are instead positions that are good for all Americans -- men and women alike.
I am not a woman, but I am blessed to have a number of wonderful women in my life, including a wife, a mother, a mother-in-law, and several sisters-in-law. And I can tell you for a fact that all of these women find it extremely insulting that the Obama Administration thinks that government-mandated birth control and government-funded abortion are the issues that women care about the most. As I noted in a post from last year:
So what exactly have Romney and the GOP done to warrant these charges? According to the articles I linked to, it appears the GOP war on women comes down to three things: Romney's promise to repeal ObamaCare; his opposition to the Department of Health & Human Services mandate that employers must pay for health insurance that includes coverage for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees, even if it violates the employer's religious beliefs; and his support for ending taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Another issue that I have heard Obama talk about is the notion that Romney opposes equal pay for women because of GOP opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which was passed by a Democratic Congress in 2009. Let's look at these issues one at a time.
Of course, it is laughable to reduce the huge issue of ObamaCare to a "women's issue" just because women may get certain "free" benefits as a result of that legislation. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose ObamaCare for the sake of the entire country, including federal spending and deficit concerns, concerns about government control of health care, possible future health care rationing, likely reductions in the quality of care, expanded government power to force people to buy a product, and the burden that the additional taxes and regulations will place on individuals and businesses as well as the economy at large. To boil down this issue to nothing more than free breast cancer screenings for women is silly.
The "contraception mandate" is the second issue Obama is campaigning on. Conservatives are opposed to this mandate because of the government coercion of private businesses and because of the threat to religious liberty by forcing individuals to pay for something that they believe is morally wrong. The handwringing by the Left about how evil Republicans want to "take away women's birth control" is ridiculous. No one wants to ban contraceptives. This is not about whether women should be denied the right to use birth control, but about whether the government should be able to mandate that all of us pay for contraception through our insurance premiums -- and more specifically whether organizations like Catholic hospitals and charities should be forced to pay for contraception for their employees in defiance of their conscience.
It is ironic that Obama and the Democrats have chosen Sandra Fluke as their spokeswoman on this issue. Fluke is from a wealthy, privileged family, attended one of the top law schools in the country, and is virtually guaranteed a six-digit salary. The Democrats like to talk about the 1%. Well, Sandra Fluke is part of the 1%. Yet she whined in her testimony before members of Congress about how unfair it was that she had to pay for her own birth control (based on her free choice to attend a Catholic school) and how her friends (other privileged young women also attending one of the top law schools in the country) were miserable because they were forced to spend up to $3,000 per year on contraceptives. Well cry me a river. A month's supply of birth control can easily be purchased without insurance for $20 or $30. If women need special contraceptive drugs for non-contraceptive medical reasons, religious organizations are willing to provide them with insurance that pays for them. Why should the government mandate that all of us pay higher premiums to finance people's sex lives? No one is trying to tell these women what to do with their own bodies or denying them their right to birth control access. We are just politely asking them to take responsibility for their own choices and pay for their own dang birth control (or get their boyfriends to pay for it, or choose one of many insurance plans that cover contraceptives or one of many employers who pay for such insurance plans). Which brings us to another irony. Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of "wanting the government to get involved in people's bedrooms," yet they are the ones that are injecting government into this issue. Republicans are the ones who want to keep government out of people's bedrooms.
Then there is the issue of federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Democrats have tried hard to paint Planned Parenthood as primarily an organization that provides basic health care for poor women and might provide an abortion or two on the side if necessary. This is completely false, as a March 2011 Chiaroscuro Foundation report demonstrates. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the U.S., performing about 25% of all abortions. The number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood has gone up proportionally to the amount of taxpayer funds provided to it by the federal government. Abortions provide more than 37% of Planned Parenthood's total revenue, and the organization has been aggressively expanding its abortion operations over the past few years. About 98% of all Planned Parenthood services to preganant women are abortion services. In 2009, the organization performed over 332,000 abortions and had only 7,000 prenatal care clients and less than 1,000 adoption referrals (and those non-abortion preganancy services are declining). Planned Parenthood is not a significant primary health care provider for women -- less than 20,000 of its 3 million clients received primary care services. They don't provide mammograms, for example; they only refer their clients for them.
Worst of all, Planned Parenthood is a corrupt organization. It has been found guilty in courts of law for failing to comply with state parental notification laws and for failing to provide informed consent to a 13-year-old girl impregnated by her much older coach. It has covered up cases of statutory rape and incest. Its staff has been caught on video more than once cooperating with sex trafficking of minors and coaching young girls not to reveal the ages of the men who impregnated them. Despite all of this corruption, Planned Parenthood is a $1 billion organization that has the lobbying clout on Capitol Hill to keep the federal dollars flowing into its coffers and has successfully bullied smaller organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation into continuing to fund its abortion-centered operations.
So tell me again, President Obama, why taxpayers should be funding this corrupt abortion provider? And why opposing such funding is "anti-woman"?
Finally, Obama's claim that Romney is against equal pay for women because of GOP opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is ridiculous. For more than 40 years, U.S. law has mandated that men and women be paid equally for equal work. No one on the Republican side, least of all Mitt Romney, is arguing that these laws should be revoked. However, the Lilly Ledbetter Act goes far beyond that by essentially eliminating any time limit on pay discrimination lawsuits. It was named for a woman who lost a sex discrimination case before the Supreme Court because she waited more than 5 years after she found out she was earning less than her male co-workers before bringing her discrimination lawsuit.
Stuart Taylor has a readable and extremely insightful column on this topic in National Journal that I highly recommend. He points out that the Ledbetter law is a bonanza for trial lawyers, but is harmful for business because it makes it "harder than ever for employers to defend themselves against bogus (as well as valid) discrimination claims, effectively adding to the cost of each new hire" and thus indirectly harming workers, both male and female. And there is no need for such legislation, because the data indicates that "the gender gap can be explained to a large extent by nondiscriminatory factors" such as "child-related factors, demographics, academic majors, work experience, and occupational characteristics." While reasonable people may be able to disagree on whether the Ledbetter Act is a good idea or not, it is laughable to claim as Obama does that anyone who opposes it is in favor of discrimination against women.
So in summary, Romney's "war on women" is nothing more than a fiction invented by the Obama campaign to try to peel female votes away from Romney. On each of these issues, Romney's positions are not anti-woman at all, but are instead positions that are good for all Americans -- men and women alike.
I am not a woman, but I am blessed to have a number of wonderful women in my life, including a wife, a mother, a mother-in-law, and several sisters-in-law. And I can tell you for a fact that all of these women find it extremely insulting that the Obama Administration thinks that government-mandated birth control and government-funded abortion are the issues that women care about the most. As I noted in a post from last year:
Of all the important choices that exist in this world and all the important rights that women have, it all boils down to one thing for the Obama crowd: abortion. Abortion for any reason, at any stage in the pregnancy, with no restrictions. They mean nothing more and nothing less than this when they talk about "choice" and "women's rights."Democratic leaders and members of the media throw around the phrase "a woman's right to choose" as though abortion on demand is the number one priority for all women. In fact, a recent Gallup survey found that over the past four years, an average of only 45% of all adult American women (and only 49% of women of child-bearing age) consider themselves to be "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion. So much for women thinking monolithically on this issue. And even many pro-choice women must consider other issues to be more important and relevant to them than taxpayer funding of abortion or mandates for religious employers to pay for contraception. I hope that American voters have enough sense to see through this cynical ploy by Obama to distract from the most pressing issues for all Americans -- jobs and economic growth, quality health care and education, entitlement reform, a sensible energy policy, and checks on federal spending and the growth of the deficit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)