Great article from Charles Krauthammer this morning about the idiocy of Obama's energy policies. Read it here.
Krauthammer's conclusion is that high gas prices "are a constant reminder of three years of a rigid, fatuous, fantasy-driven energy policy that has rendered us scandalously dependent and excessively vulnerable."
Friday, March 16, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
"In questions of power...
...let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
~Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution, 1798
~Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution, 1798
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Reggie for President
My parents' dog, Reggie, overheard me saying that I would vote for him over Obama this November and has asked me to announce his candidacy for president here on Common Cents. -- S.D.
My fellow Americans, both human and canine:
In 2008, we elected Barack Obama as the President of the United States, and for the first time in my life, I was proud of my country. This year, I ask you to elect me as the second brown president of the United States. Here is my vision for the future of our country:
Ruff,
Reggie, Labertarian for President
My fellow Americans, both human and canine:
In 2008, we elected Barack Obama as the President of the United States, and for the first time in my life, I was proud of my country. This year, I ask you to elect me as the second brown president of the United States. Here is my vision for the future of our country:
- Over the course of obedience school, female dogs can spend over $3000 on birth control, creating an undue hardship for these bright young pups. There are some who would block access to these vital services, and by doing so, doom dogs around the country to be punished with a litter of puppies. As president, I will require all providers of health insurance to include coverage of spaying and neutering with no increase in premiums or copays.
- Too many dogs are overweight from eating unhealthy food from the table. Obesity, whether in humans or dogs, raises insurance premiums for everyone. As president, I will promote taxes on bacon and cheese in order to persuade dogs and owners to make the right food choices.
- We must punish the 1%, who dine on expensive canned foods, such as Alpo, while the less privileged among us are forced to eat Old Roy (and in doing so, fund our corporate overlords at Wal-Mart).
- Some people say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. However, I believe that all dogs are capable of learning if provided with the opportunities that they deserve. As president, I will introduce the K9 Bill, which will provide grants to dogs to attend college after retiring from the police force.
- There are some intolerant people in government who rail against earmarks. As president, I will end discrimination on the basis of breed and provide opportunities to all dogs of all ear colors. (This is what they are talking about when they refer to "earmarks", right? My campaign manager said that it means something else, but I think he's confused.)
- As president, I will show solidarity with my fellow flea-ridden housepets in the Occupy movement by instituting a student loan forgiveness program.
- As president, I will stimulate the economy by creating numerous shovel-ready projects. In fact, my shovel-ready projects have already created jobs for my owners at home.
- There are millions of people in our country who, by no fault of their own, are not entitled to vote under our Constitution or who lack the energy or motivation (I can relate to that, as I enjoy lying around) to acquire a photo ID. There are some who would discriminate on the basis of citizenship or laziness by enacting laws which would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls. As president, I will propose a new odor-based program where voters identify themselves based on their unique scent. (This policy would especially benefit the deliciously-fragrant members of the Occupy movement.)
- As president, I will work to improve our strained relations with other nations by showing them the proper level of respect. If I see another dog who is bigger than I am, like the king of Saudi Arabia for example, I will approach with my belly on the ground and my tail between my legs.
Ruff,
Reggie, Labertarian for President
"A turd in every yard"
Saturday, March 10, 2012
War on Women?
I'm sorry to keep harping on the contraceptive mandate/Sandra Fluke issue, but the Democrats keep talking about it (I guess they don't feel like trying to defend Obama's economy) so it's important to respond to their false claims. Mark Steyn has a fantastic (as always) column out today pointing out the ridiculousness of this supposed "war on women" the Republicans are waging. I laughed out loud reading it.
Of course, the Washington Post is pushing this story line hard. They do whatever they can to smear Republicans. They tried to destroy Bob McDonnell over this very issue, publishing over a dozen front page articles claiming he was anti-woman because of some thesis he had written over a decade earlier. Fortunately, Virginia voters saw through this transparent smear, and I have hope that voters will once again be smart enough not to fall for the Post's distortions. Rasmussen has a new national poll out today that shows Romney leading Obama 48% to 43% (Santorum also leads Obama by one point). 43% is a TERRIBLE number for an incumbent. Perhaps the Democrats' tired old "war on women" strategy isn't working quite as well as they think. I hope it backfires on them, big time.
Of course, the Washington Post is pushing this story line hard. They do whatever they can to smear Republicans. They tried to destroy Bob McDonnell over this very issue, publishing over a dozen front page articles claiming he was anti-woman because of some thesis he had written over a decade earlier. Fortunately, Virginia voters saw through this transparent smear, and I have hope that voters will once again be smart enough not to fall for the Post's distortions. Rasmussen has a new national poll out today that shows Romney leading Obama 48% to 43% (Santorum also leads Obama by one point). 43% is a TERRIBLE number for an incumbent. Perhaps the Democrats' tired old "war on women" strategy isn't working quite as well as they think. I hope it backfires on them, big time.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Hypocrisy of the Left
Michelle Malkin has a great column out showing the mind-blowing double standard of the left-wing media when it comes to civility towards women. She lays out the case pretty compellingly, quote by quote. Kirsten Powers, a refreshingly honest Democratic consultant, has recently done the same thing.
There are some more worthwhile comments on this topic from Jim Geraghty's blog The Campaign Spot here and here. And James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has some interesting thoughts on a broader related them -- the cultural contradictions of feminism.
The bottom line is, if you are a conservative, you should expect to be accused of hating women, gays, immigrants, blacks, Muslims, Mormons, and the poor. (Or even if you're not conservative - just ask Juan Williams.) You should expect to be accused of being racist, intolerant, and backward and of being against science and against the separation of church and state. The epithets will be much worse if you are an outspokenly conservative woman or an outspokenly conservative black, because such people break the mold in a way that threatens the Left.
That's not to say there isn't nastiness and hate on the Right as well. There certainly is. Nor is it to say all liberals are nasty and hateful, because they certainly aren't. Some of my nicest co-workers are liberal. But I believe that vulgarity and hate are far more prevalent on the institutional Left than the institutional Right. Part of this, I believe, is due to Leftist ideology that tends to divide people into different racial and demographic groups for the purpose of addressing grievances and promoting equality of outcome. I have found that Leftists often tend to assume things like all women are pro-choice or all blacks are in favor of affirmative-action, and if they are not then they are somehow betraying their niche group. (Conservatives generally prefer to think of people not as African-Americans, or gay Americans, or Latino Americans, or female Americans, but just Americans.) And of course, this strategy of dividing people along racial or demographic lines is an important part of the Democrats' political strategy, because they depend on overwhelming support from niche racial and demographic voting blocs for their overall success as a party.
But I think the primary reason for the prevalence of vulgarity and hate on the institutional Left compared with the Right is the simple fact that it is far easier to get away with it if you are on the Left. Pretty much all of the liberals cited by Michelle Malkin faced no public outcry or serious consequences for their comments due to media bias and selective reporting. Conservatives, even ones as powerful as Rush, cannot slide by so easily. If, in an alternative universe, the media was dominated by conservatives, I suspect we would see a greater predominance of hate on the Right. In a polarized political environment like the current one, people tend to say whatever they think they can get away with.
UPDATE: Kirsten Powers has written a follow-up column on the double-standard of the media when it comes to misogyny, and it is outstanding! Read it here. Among other things, she notes that Bill Maher is slated to have top Obama advisor David Axelrod appearing on his show in a week or two, and also that Maher donated $1 million to an Obama super-PAC run by a long-time Obama aide. (We found out today that the Obama super-PAC has no intention of returning that money. After all, Maher supports Obama, so his comments about women are no big deal.) Powers adds that Keith Olbermann, another liberal noted for his respect toward women, viciously attacked her for her column on his show, and his followers then contacted her en masse to tell her, among other things, that she was "just another brainless plastic doll Fox puts on camera to appease the horned up 60-year-old white dudes at home.” (These people cannot help themselves.) She notes in conclusion that "the uproar over Limbaugh is only because it fits into the Democratic narrative that the GOP is 'anti-woman.' It’s Democratic Party activism dressed up as feminism."
Oh yeah, and guess who is slated to speak at the upcoming Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner? Another left-wing "comedian" who has said unbelievably vile and disgusting things about women, including Sarah Palin. So all these self-important media types who are so exercised about Rush Limbaugh are apparently quite happy to go listen to Louis C.K., who is ten times worse than Rush. At least one journalist, Greta van Susteren, has the guts to speak out against this double standard. Here is her statement about boycotting this event. How many other journalists will do the same?
There are some more worthwhile comments on this topic from Jim Geraghty's blog The Campaign Spot here and here. And James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has some interesting thoughts on a broader related them -- the cultural contradictions of feminism.
The bottom line is, if you are a conservative, you should expect to be accused of hating women, gays, immigrants, blacks, Muslims, Mormons, and the poor. (Or even if you're not conservative - just ask Juan Williams.) You should expect to be accused of being racist, intolerant, and backward and of being against science and against the separation of church and state. The epithets will be much worse if you are an outspokenly conservative woman or an outspokenly conservative black, because such people break the mold in a way that threatens the Left.
That's not to say there isn't nastiness and hate on the Right as well. There certainly is. Nor is it to say all liberals are nasty and hateful, because they certainly aren't. Some of my nicest co-workers are liberal. But I believe that vulgarity and hate are far more prevalent on the institutional Left than the institutional Right. Part of this, I believe, is due to Leftist ideology that tends to divide people into different racial and demographic groups for the purpose of addressing grievances and promoting equality of outcome. I have found that Leftists often tend to assume things like all women are pro-choice or all blacks are in favor of affirmative-action, and if they are not then they are somehow betraying their niche group. (Conservatives generally prefer to think of people not as African-Americans, or gay Americans, or Latino Americans, or female Americans, but just Americans.) And of course, this strategy of dividing people along racial or demographic lines is an important part of the Democrats' political strategy, because they depend on overwhelming support from niche racial and demographic voting blocs for their overall success as a party.
But I think the primary reason for the prevalence of vulgarity and hate on the institutional Left compared with the Right is the simple fact that it is far easier to get away with it if you are on the Left. Pretty much all of the liberals cited by Michelle Malkin faced no public outcry or serious consequences for their comments due to media bias and selective reporting. Conservatives, even ones as powerful as Rush, cannot slide by so easily. If, in an alternative universe, the media was dominated by conservatives, I suspect we would see a greater predominance of hate on the Right. In a polarized political environment like the current one, people tend to say whatever they think they can get away with.
UPDATE: Kirsten Powers has written a follow-up column on the double-standard of the media when it comes to misogyny, and it is outstanding! Read it here. Among other things, she notes that Bill Maher is slated to have top Obama advisor David Axelrod appearing on his show in a week or two, and also that Maher donated $1 million to an Obama super-PAC run by a long-time Obama aide. (We found out today that the Obama super-PAC has no intention of returning that money. After all, Maher supports Obama, so his comments about women are no big deal.) Powers adds that Keith Olbermann, another liberal noted for his respect toward women, viciously attacked her for her column on his show, and his followers then contacted her en masse to tell her, among other things, that she was "just another brainless plastic doll Fox puts on camera to appease the horned up 60-year-old white dudes at home.” (These people cannot help themselves.) She notes in conclusion that "the uproar over Limbaugh is only because it fits into the Democratic narrative that the GOP is 'anti-woman.' It’s Democratic Party activism dressed up as feminism."
Oh yeah, and guess who is slated to speak at the upcoming Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner? Another left-wing "comedian" who has said unbelievably vile and disgusting things about women, including Sarah Palin. So all these self-important media types who are so exercised about Rush Limbaugh are apparently quite happy to go listen to Louis C.K., who is ten times worse than Rush. At least one journalist, Greta van Susteren, has the guts to speak out against this double standard. Here is her statement about boycotting this event. How many other journalists will do the same?
Today's Impromptus...
...by Jay Nordlinger of National Review is especially good, I think. Link here.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Yes, There Is Hope
This is probably one of the most personal blog posts I have written.
Last night, after posting about Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, I got in bed. My mind began to be flooded with all the political and cultural headlines over the past few weeks that have made me angry and frustrated. Obama's contraception/abortion mandate...the outpouring of hate by the Left over Andrew Breitbart's death...the blatant media double standard, false accusations of sexism, and brazen attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh...the media's attempt to turn Sandra Fluke into a hero for "women's rights"...Susan G. Komen Foundation being bullied into continuing their support for Planned Parenthood, an organization that does not provide mammograms but is the largest abortion provider in the U.S....the lies told about the completely reasonable bill in Virginia to require an ultrasound of the doctor's choice prior to an abortion...the vicious attacks claiming that Rick Santorum wants to set up a theocracy in the U.S. and the blatant lies about him wanting to ban contraception...Obama's unconstitutional non-recess recess appointments that got no coverage from the media...the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maryland, and the prospect of a possible upcoming referendum battle on the topic which will likely get just as nasty as the one in California which led to newspapers releasing the names and addresses of supporters of traditional marriage and the subsequent hate and intimidation directed against them by gay activists...the recent scholarly article published advocating the murder of newborn babies if they are not wanted by their parents...the weakness of the Republican field and the bitterness and infighting among conservatives over this election...the rising poll numbers and electoral prospects for the most left-wing president we've ever had and the realization that we may be stuck with him another four years...Obama's latest big-spending budget, which includes more subsidies for rich liberals who buy Chevy Volts but which cuts benefits for our military personnel...the sad state of our country which is drowning in an ocean of debt and spiraling into a moral cesspool. The more I thought about all of these things, the angrier I became. I could feel my heart racing and I was having trouble catching my breath. I honestly wondered if I might be having a panic attack.
I turned on my bedside lamp and did the best thing I could have done. I opened up the Bible and started reading. I started with one of my favorite passages in the entire Old Testament. It is the story about when the king of Syria wanted to capture the prophet Elisha, so he sent an army after him. Here is how the passage goes from 2 Kings 6:14-17:
This passage is a reminder to God's people that no matter how dark it seems and no matter how large the obstacles or how great the opposition appears, God's hand of protection will always be on us. Like Elisha's servant, I so often need God to open my eyes of faith to see those horses and chariots of fire. I could feel the tightness in my chest starting to subside as a I re-read those comforting words, "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Or, as Romans 8 puts it, "If God is for us, who can be against us?"
Next, I turned to Psalm 46, the psalm that my pastor had preached on last Sunday:
God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy habitation of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
God will help her when morning dawns.
The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
he utters his voice, the earth melts.
The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah
Come, behold the works of the Lord,
how he has brought desolations on the earth.
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the chariots with fire.
'Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!'
The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Talk about an awesome refuge to have! No wonder the psalmist expresses such confidence...the same God who has done such mighty works in the past such as bringing his people through the Red Sea and feeding them in the desert with manna from heaven is now the God who is with us! The God who will rush to our aid when morning dawns! The God who sits enthroned and exalted over the entire world!
In the light of this confidence in God, David writes in Psalm 3, "In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety." He adds in Psalm 121, "Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." We can sleep at night because God is our refuge and fortress, and He never sleeps!
Next, I found myself reading these awesome words from Isaiah 40:
To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name,
by the greatness of his might,
and because he is strong in power
not one is missing.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
'My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God'?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.
How can we think for a minute that our way is hidden from the Lord when He calls each of the stars by name? How can the Creator of the ends of the earth, with unsearchable understanding and inexhaustible strength, be unable to give us the help we need for our trials? He is the one in control of everything happening in this world, including all the depressing things happening in this country. He will give His people strength to soar like eagles and endure the long race without fainting.
But what about beyond this world? Do we have a hope that endures beyond the grave into eternity? Yes, according to Revelation 6!
Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, 'Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?' I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, 'These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Therefore they are before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.
They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;
the sun shall not strike them,
nor any scorching heat.
For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and he will guide them to springs of living water,
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'
Yes, we have to come through the great tribulation of this life first. Yes, the cross precedes the crown. But if we belong to the Lord, these afflictions are but light and momentary compared to the awesome weight of the glory that awaits us in heaven with God. The worst it will ever get for us is right now. We have nothing but pure joy ahead of us, if we press on and endure to the end!
After I read these passages, I went to sleep and slept like a baby. I hope you do too!
Last night, after posting about Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, I got in bed. My mind began to be flooded with all the political and cultural headlines over the past few weeks that have made me angry and frustrated. Obama's contraception/abortion mandate...the outpouring of hate by the Left over Andrew Breitbart's death...the blatant media double standard, false accusations of sexism, and brazen attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh...the media's attempt to turn Sandra Fluke into a hero for "women's rights"...Susan G. Komen Foundation being bullied into continuing their support for Planned Parenthood, an organization that does not provide mammograms but is the largest abortion provider in the U.S....the lies told about the completely reasonable bill in Virginia to require an ultrasound of the doctor's choice prior to an abortion...the vicious attacks claiming that Rick Santorum wants to set up a theocracy in the U.S. and the blatant lies about him wanting to ban contraception...Obama's unconstitutional non-recess recess appointments that got no coverage from the media...the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maryland, and the prospect of a possible upcoming referendum battle on the topic which will likely get just as nasty as the one in California which led to newspapers releasing the names and addresses of supporters of traditional marriage and the subsequent hate and intimidation directed against them by gay activists...the recent scholarly article published advocating the murder of newborn babies if they are not wanted by their parents...the weakness of the Republican field and the bitterness and infighting among conservatives over this election...the rising poll numbers and electoral prospects for the most left-wing president we've ever had and the realization that we may be stuck with him another four years...Obama's latest big-spending budget, which includes more subsidies for rich liberals who buy Chevy Volts but which cuts benefits for our military personnel...the sad state of our country which is drowning in an ocean of debt and spiraling into a moral cesspool. The more I thought about all of these things, the angrier I became. I could feel my heart racing and I was having trouble catching my breath. I honestly wondered if I might be having a panic attack.
I turned on my bedside lamp and did the best thing I could have done. I opened up the Bible and started reading. I started with one of my favorite passages in the entire Old Testament. It is the story about when the king of Syria wanted to capture the prophet Elisha, so he sent an army after him. Here is how the passage goes from 2 Kings 6:14-17:
So he [the king of Syria] sent there horses and chariots and a great army, and they came by night and surrounded the city. When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
This passage is a reminder to God's people that no matter how dark it seems and no matter how large the obstacles or how great the opposition appears, God's hand of protection will always be on us. Like Elisha's servant, I so often need God to open my eyes of faith to see those horses and chariots of fire. I could feel the tightness in my chest starting to subside as a I re-read those comforting words, "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Or, as Romans 8 puts it, "If God is for us, who can be against us?"
Next, I turned to Psalm 46, the psalm that my pastor had preached on last Sunday:
God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy habitation of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
God will help her when morning dawns.
The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
he utters his voice, the earth melts.
The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah
Come, behold the works of the Lord,
how he has brought desolations on the earth.
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
he breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the chariots with fire.
'Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!'
The Lord of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.
Talk about an awesome refuge to have! No wonder the psalmist expresses such confidence...the same God who has done such mighty works in the past such as bringing his people through the Red Sea and feeding them in the desert with manna from heaven is now the God who is with us! The God who will rush to our aid when morning dawns! The God who sits enthroned and exalted over the entire world!
In the light of this confidence in God, David writes in Psalm 3, "In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety." He adds in Psalm 121, "Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." We can sleep at night because God is our refuge and fortress, and He never sleeps!
Next, I found myself reading these awesome words from Isaiah 40:
To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name,
by the greatness of his might,
and because he is strong in power
not one is missing.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
and speak, O Israel,
'My way is hidden from the Lord,
and my right is disregarded by my God'?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.
How can we think for a minute that our way is hidden from the Lord when He calls each of the stars by name? How can the Creator of the ends of the earth, with unsearchable understanding and inexhaustible strength, be unable to give us the help we need for our trials? He is the one in control of everything happening in this world, including all the depressing things happening in this country. He will give His people strength to soar like eagles and endure the long race without fainting.
But what about beyond this world? Do we have a hope that endures beyond the grave into eternity? Yes, according to Revelation 6!
Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, 'Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?' I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, 'These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Therefore they are before the throne of God,
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.
They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;
the sun shall not strike them,
nor any scorching heat.
For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and he will guide them to springs of living water,
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.'
Yes, we have to come through the great tribulation of this life first. Yes, the cross precedes the crown. But if we belong to the Lord, these afflictions are but light and momentary compared to the awesome weight of the glory that awaits us in heaven with God. The worst it will ever get for us is right now. We have nothing but pure joy ahead of us, if we press on and endure to the end!
After I read these passages, I went to sleep and slept like a baby. I hope you do too!
Monday, March 5, 2012
A Couple of Links
I just wanted to make a few brief follow up comments on the topic that Some Dude broached below regarding Sandra Fluke. It is so bizarre to me that the media, with a little help from Rush Limbaugh, has succeeded in turning Sandra Fluke into a sympathetic victim. Remember, this woman is a 30-year-old activist who chose to put herself in the spotlight and has been trying publicly for years to force a Catholic university to pay for her birth control, against the Catholic Church's beliefs. Why should the university (and the public in the form of higher premiums) be forced to foot her and her friends' >$3,000/year contraceptive bill for a purely elective activity? I have posted recently on the widespread availability of cheap -- or even free -- contraceptive devices. In what twisted alternative universe does this woman qualify for hero status? Or merit attention and lavish praise from the President of the United States? (Does he really have no other priorities?)
And don't even get me started on the media double standard on crude speech toward women. Rush's comment doesn't even come close to the vile things said about prominent conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann by the Left. Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann make Rush Limbaugh sound like Mr. Rogers, but the feminists and the media have never conspired to try to remove them from the air. And unlike Maher and Olbermann, Rush apologized. He should have known better. No apology from Rush will ever be enough to satisfy this crowd. He might as well have saved his breath, because they will never rest until he is silenced for good. The Left's outrage about civility and the treatment of women and racism is always highly selective. It is a tool to promote their political agenda, nothing more. I was going to include a link to a Daily Caller article that collected some of the unbelievably nastiness from the Left (including some very well-known writers from Slate and Rolling Stone) in response to the death of conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who died at 43 and left behind a widow and four young children, but the article apparently included so much foul language that my home computer's filter would not allow me to access it. (I will add a link to it later.) Brent Bozell III from the Media Research Center gives some specific examples of this incredible double standard from the media here. At some point in the future, I hope to do a post giving more specific examples of the prevalence of this kind of hate-filled rhetoric on the Left.
And don't even get me started on the media double standard on crude speech toward women. Rush's comment doesn't even come close to the vile things said about prominent conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann by the Left. Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann make Rush Limbaugh sound like Mr. Rogers, but the feminists and the media have never conspired to try to remove them from the air. And unlike Maher and Olbermann, Rush apologized. He should have known better. No apology from Rush will ever be enough to satisfy this crowd. He might as well have saved his breath, because they will never rest until he is silenced for good. The Left's outrage about civility and the treatment of women and racism is always highly selective. It is a tool to promote their political agenda, nothing more. I was going to include a link to a Daily Caller article that collected some of the unbelievably nastiness from the Left (including some very well-known writers from Slate and Rolling Stone) in response to the death of conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who died at 43 and left behind a widow and four young children, but the article apparently included so much foul language that my home computer's filter would not allow me to access it. (I will add a link to it later.) Brent Bozell III from the Media Research Center gives some specific examples of this incredible double standard from the media here. At some point in the future, I hope to do a post giving more specific examples of the prevalence of this kind of hate-filled rhetoric on the Left.
I want to include a couple other links as well. One is an interesting take on Rick Santorum's candidacy from a fantastic Christian blogger named Albert Mohler. The other is an anonymous article from the American Thinker that I found to be extremely provocative called "The New Scar on My Soul."
UPDATE: I stand by my initial comments about Sandra Fluke. Her claims were preposterous and I believe she is very far from a hero. I also stand by my comments about the ridiculous double standard of the Left and the media, which is crucifying Rush but ignoring similar comments from leftists. But having read a little more about what Rush actually said about her, including demanding that she post videos of her sex online, it does sound like he crossed a line of basic respect and decency. I think the personal insults went too far, and his attacks have not only hurt him but also undermined the cause he was trying to champion. Here's a pretty good article from a conservative, Jeff Jacoby, who says that Rush needs to make a real apology.
On birth control and role-playing games
I never thought I would read a sentence which combines these two seemingly-disparate things.
"If insurance companies are mandated to start providing the accessories for our hobbies than [sic*] shouldn’t they pay for my D&D [Dungeons and Dragons] supplies as part of a men’s health initiative?" -- Brian Cherry (link)*Latin for "He made the mistake. Not me."
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Postmodern Lord's Prayer
Our celestial parent of unspecified gender, hallowed by thy name (but not so hallowed that thou can pass judgment on us; that would be intolerant of thee). Thy gender-neutral royal administration of the world come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, or Valhalla, or wherever it is that we go after we die. Give us this day our daily organic tofu. And forgive us our unintentional indiscretions, for we didn't really mean it and who are you to judge us anyway? And lead us not to be tempted to judge our neighbor, but deliver us from intolerance. For ours is the power and the glory forever, for we can do anything if we just work together and accept one another as we are. Amen.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Obama vs. Constitution, Again
I'm sure most of my readers have already heard about the Obama Administration's recent mandate that religious organizations, including Catholic charities, hospitals, & universities, provide their employees with health insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients even if doing so violates their beliefs (which it does in many cases). Work has been busy lately, so I've been a bit late to the party on this. I hope it's obvious to most of my readers that this is an assault on our 1st Amendment religious freedoms. It should also be obvious that this is just one example of what happens when government grows too big and starts trying to control every area of our lives. After all, ObamaCare requires every American to purchase government-approved health insurance, which is also a violation of our constitutional freedoms, and it's really not much of a step from that to this birth control mandate imposed on religious organizations.
I found a great article by one of my favorite National Review Online authors, Andrew McCarthy, about this attack on religious freedom by Obama. It's called "The Contraceptive Mandate's Shaky Justification," and it does a great job of explaining how ridiculous Obama's claim is that women in our country lack access to "reproductive services." And don't be fooled by the so-called compromise that Obama's Administration has since offered to try to appease his critics -- it is all show and no substance, as this NRO editorial makes clear.
This issue is just one of many that demonstrate Obama's hostility toward religion. Other examples, many of which I have posted about here, include his radical pro-abortion positions, his refusal to defend or enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, his appointment of radical gay activist Kevin Jennings as his safe schools czar, his rolling back of freedom of conscience provisions for medical practitioners, his cavalier attitude toward global human rights, and his removal of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from its position as administrator of the government's Human Trafficking Program despite its excellent qualifications to do so. Not to mention his administration's recent attempt to argue before the Supreme Court that the government should be able to interfere in religious organizations' choices to hire or fire their own leaders and teachers (which was fortunately shot down unanimously).
Of course, I'm sure people who are indifferent or hostile to religion or who want to silence religious expression in the public square and eliminate the influence of religious values on our society are perfectly happy with all of these decisions and actions. What I don't get is why any Christian who takes his/her faith seriously would ever consider voting to re-elect Obama (or sitting out the election).
UPDATE: I found another great article on the birth control mandate, this one written by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a blogger himself. Mohler analyzes a column by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times in which, after lying about Christians wanting to ban contraceptives, Kristof defines religious freedom in this way: "“The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.” Wow. Whatever happened to "inalienable rights" and "no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"? It is scary when we have reached the point when a mainstream liberal columnist for one of the largest newspapers in the country defines freedom of religion as the government trying to respect and accommodate religion where it can.
I found a great article by one of my favorite National Review Online authors, Andrew McCarthy, about this attack on religious freedom by Obama. It's called "The Contraceptive Mandate's Shaky Justification," and it does a great job of explaining how ridiculous Obama's claim is that women in our country lack access to "reproductive services." And don't be fooled by the so-called compromise that Obama's Administration has since offered to try to appease his critics -- it is all show and no substance, as this NRO editorial makes clear.
This issue is just one of many that demonstrate Obama's hostility toward religion. Other examples, many of which I have posted about here, include his radical pro-abortion positions, his refusal to defend or enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, his appointment of radical gay activist Kevin Jennings as his safe schools czar, his rolling back of freedom of conscience provisions for medical practitioners, his cavalier attitude toward global human rights, and his removal of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from its position as administrator of the government's Human Trafficking Program despite its excellent qualifications to do so. Not to mention his administration's recent attempt to argue before the Supreme Court that the government should be able to interfere in religious organizations' choices to hire or fire their own leaders and teachers (which was fortunately shot down unanimously).
Of course, I'm sure people who are indifferent or hostile to religion or who want to silence religious expression in the public square and eliminate the influence of religious values on our society are perfectly happy with all of these decisions and actions. What I don't get is why any Christian who takes his/her faith seriously would ever consider voting to re-elect Obama (or sitting out the election).
UPDATE: I found another great article on the birth control mandate, this one written by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a blogger himself. Mohler analyzes a column by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times in which, after lying about Christians wanting to ban contraceptives, Kristof defines religious freedom in this way: "“The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.” Wow. Whatever happened to "inalienable rights" and "no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"? It is scary when we have reached the point when a mainstream liberal columnist for one of the largest newspapers in the country defines freedom of religion as the government trying to respect and accommodate religion where it can.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Brief Thoughts on Yesterday's Primary/Caucus Results
I don't have much time to blog now, but I wanted to just post a couple of quick thoughts on the outcome of the primaries and caucuses from yesterday. For those who haven't been following closely, Santorum won huge victories in the caucus in Minnesota and the primary in Missouri, and also pulled a shocker by upsetting Romney in the Colorado caucus as well. He ran the table, 3 for 3. Strangely, all three of these races were non-binding, which means Santorum did not win any actual delegates yesterday. But still, the results were a clear expression of dissatisfaction with the frontrunner, Mitt Romney. Romney actually finished 3rd behind Santorum and Paul in Minnesota, despite an endorsement from the state's former governor Tim Pawlenty.
Just a week and a half ago, I wrote a long post expressing my support for Mitt Romney as the best of the choices available to us. Since then, Romney has made some horrible gaffes ("I'm not concerned about the very poor") and has given conservatives more ammunition against him (among other things, by coming out in support of an automatic minimum wage increase tied to inflation). He has done a poor job defending his Bain Capital record and his 15% tax rate on his tax returns. His recent stumbles have called into question both his electability and his conservative credentials. (Obviously, many conservatives have questioned those things all along, but I am questioning them much more now than I was a few weeks ago.) The results yesterday confirmed the message also sent by South Carolina: Romney has a problem with conservative voters.
On one of the pro-Romney websites I frequent, some of the posters are attacking the "stupid" Republican base voters for supporting candidates like Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul who are "unelectable," accusing them of being anti-Mormon extremists who would rather lose an election rather than compromise their conservative purity. I find these attacks to be deeply misguided at best, and offensive at worst. The problem here is not with Republican voters. The problem is with Mitt Romney, who is doing an exceptionally poor job of getting conservatives to vote for him. Conservatives are not obligated to vote for the frontrunner just because the pundits say he is the only electable one. Candidates are not awarded votes automatically based on their resume and endorsements. They have to earn those votes.
Romney is sort of acting like he can just put it on cruise control and coast across the finish line. He seems to just want to play it safe, rather than showing real passion against Obama and his policies. He doesn't seem to be talking about issues that conservatives care about, except in very vague generalities. His super-PAC's are well funded and able to attack his GOP rivals, but he isn't convincing people to positively support him with his speeches and campaign activities. Republicans are angry about Obama and what he is doing to our country, and they want a nominee who is in touch with those concerns and who will effectively give voice to them. So far, Romney is not doing that. In fact, his cautious approach to the campaign is confirming the fears of many conservatives that he is a wishy-washy moderate who will say and do anything to get elected. It's not a coincidence that turnout is down in so many of these state primaries. Romney (and the entire field, for that matter) is not giving people a reason to come out and vote.
I badly want to see Obama defeated. I desperately want our party to nominate someone who is able to do that. On paper, Romney seems well-positioned to do that. He has a strong resume, executive experience, is a reasonably good speaker and debater, and appears to check all the right boxes with regard to the issues. I genuinely believe he is a social conservative and a man with morals and integrity. He seems able to appeal to independents and has raised a large amount of money. But his campaign up to this point is sending a different message. It suggests a man who is passionless, weak, cautious, slow on his feet, incapable of articulating voters' concerns, and less than fully committed to conservative principles on at least some issues. Can such a candidate defeat Obama? Not likely. If Romney doesn't improve significantly, he will do poorly both with independents/moderates and also with his base in the fall.
Santorum earned his victories yesterday. He campaigned hard, made a positive case for himself, and talked about issues voters care about, like Obama's HHS contraception/abortion mandate that Romney seems so afraid to bring up. His commitment to conservative principles is beyond dispute, and he seems ready to bring the fight to Obama. I question whether he can win a general election against Obama, but if Romney doesn't get his act together and start articulating a consistently conservative issue-driven alternative to Obama, then he probably won't win either.
I was very worried about Gingrich being the nominee, and that was part of the reason why I said that I would vote for Romney if I were a Florida primary voter. But now that Gingrich seems to be fading, and an opponent more worthy of being the conservative alternative to Romney is emerging, I am much more willing to see a good primary fight. Let Santorum and Romney fight it out for a while. If Romney can find his message and convince conservatives to support him, then he will be much better positioned for the fall campaign against Obama. If he can't, he doesn't deserve to be the nominee and would fail in a general election anyway.
Romney has nobody to blame but himself for his problems with the GOP base. And it's not the fault of Republican primary voters that all their options are so problematic. So Romney supporters had better stop smearing conservative Tea Party and evangelical voters as dumb, and start making a positive case for their candidate before it's too late.
Just a week and a half ago, I wrote a long post expressing my support for Mitt Romney as the best of the choices available to us. Since then, Romney has made some horrible gaffes ("I'm not concerned about the very poor") and has given conservatives more ammunition against him (among other things, by coming out in support of an automatic minimum wage increase tied to inflation). He has done a poor job defending his Bain Capital record and his 15% tax rate on his tax returns. His recent stumbles have called into question both his electability and his conservative credentials. (Obviously, many conservatives have questioned those things all along, but I am questioning them much more now than I was a few weeks ago.) The results yesterday confirmed the message also sent by South Carolina: Romney has a problem with conservative voters.
On one of the pro-Romney websites I frequent, some of the posters are attacking the "stupid" Republican base voters for supporting candidates like Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul who are "unelectable," accusing them of being anti-Mormon extremists who would rather lose an election rather than compromise their conservative purity. I find these attacks to be deeply misguided at best, and offensive at worst. The problem here is not with Republican voters. The problem is with Mitt Romney, who is doing an exceptionally poor job of getting conservatives to vote for him. Conservatives are not obligated to vote for the frontrunner just because the pundits say he is the only electable one. Candidates are not awarded votes automatically based on their resume and endorsements. They have to earn those votes.
Romney is sort of acting like he can just put it on cruise control and coast across the finish line. He seems to just want to play it safe, rather than showing real passion against Obama and his policies. He doesn't seem to be talking about issues that conservatives care about, except in very vague generalities. His super-PAC's are well funded and able to attack his GOP rivals, but he isn't convincing people to positively support him with his speeches and campaign activities. Republicans are angry about Obama and what he is doing to our country, and they want a nominee who is in touch with those concerns and who will effectively give voice to them. So far, Romney is not doing that. In fact, his cautious approach to the campaign is confirming the fears of many conservatives that he is a wishy-washy moderate who will say and do anything to get elected. It's not a coincidence that turnout is down in so many of these state primaries. Romney (and the entire field, for that matter) is not giving people a reason to come out and vote.
I badly want to see Obama defeated. I desperately want our party to nominate someone who is able to do that. On paper, Romney seems well-positioned to do that. He has a strong resume, executive experience, is a reasonably good speaker and debater, and appears to check all the right boxes with regard to the issues. I genuinely believe he is a social conservative and a man with morals and integrity. He seems able to appeal to independents and has raised a large amount of money. But his campaign up to this point is sending a different message. It suggests a man who is passionless, weak, cautious, slow on his feet, incapable of articulating voters' concerns, and less than fully committed to conservative principles on at least some issues. Can such a candidate defeat Obama? Not likely. If Romney doesn't improve significantly, he will do poorly both with independents/moderates and also with his base in the fall.
Santorum earned his victories yesterday. He campaigned hard, made a positive case for himself, and talked about issues voters care about, like Obama's HHS contraception/abortion mandate that Romney seems so afraid to bring up. His commitment to conservative principles is beyond dispute, and he seems ready to bring the fight to Obama. I question whether he can win a general election against Obama, but if Romney doesn't get his act together and start articulating a consistently conservative issue-driven alternative to Obama, then he probably won't win either.
I was very worried about Gingrich being the nominee, and that was part of the reason why I said that I would vote for Romney if I were a Florida primary voter. But now that Gingrich seems to be fading, and an opponent more worthy of being the conservative alternative to Romney is emerging, I am much more willing to see a good primary fight. Let Santorum and Romney fight it out for a while. If Romney can find his message and convince conservatives to support him, then he will be much better positioned for the fall campaign against Obama. If he can't, he doesn't deserve to be the nominee and would fail in a general election anyway.
Romney has nobody to blame but himself for his problems with the GOP base. And it's not the fault of Republican primary voters that all their options are so problematic. So Romney supporters had better stop smearing conservative Tea Party and evangelical voters as dumb, and start making a positive case for their candidate before it's too late.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Obama by the Numbers!
Check out this fascinating list of statistics relating to the Obama economy. Of course, statistics can be easily manipulated one way or another, depending on your point of view. But I think these numbers are pretty damning for the president, and I like the fact that each statistic is backed up by a link to the source. This information could be useful next time you are discussing politics with an Obama supporter!
A little wisdom from the 18th century
"The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capital, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
~Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, Vol. II (quoted in Basic American Government by Clarence Carson)
~Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, Vol. II (quoted in Basic American Government by Clarence Carson)
Monday, January 30, 2012
If I Were a Florida Primary Voter Tomorrow...
Tomorrow is the Florida GOP presidential primary. The race has turned into a heated contest between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul lurking in the background, hoping to become spoilers. Florida has a much larger and more diverse voting population than the states that have previously voted, and its primary is winner-take-all, meaning that its results will doubtless be critical in determining the party's presidential nominee.
If I were a Florida primary voter, I would cast my vote for Mitt Romney. The fact that I have come around to supporting Romney is a bit surprising even to me, as I opposed him back in the 2008 presidential primary when many conservatives were supporting him against McCain. As recently as a few months ago, I was deadset against him being the nominee. Even now, unlike many of his fans, I am fully cognizant of his weaknesses, both with regard to his conservative credentials and his electability. He is far from a perfect candidate and far from a slam-dunk against Obama.
My support for Romney boils down to two key points: I believe he is the only candidate left in the race capable of defeating Obama, and I believe he is essentially a decent man, a competent executive, and a reasonably conservative politician who would be an acceptable Republican nominee.
Two of Romney's three remaining competitors fail on both points listed above. I believe Ron Paul is a highly unelectable candidate, for reasons I listed in a previous post, and I also find his positions on certain issues (primarily related to his views on foreign policy and the war against terrorism) to be unacceptable policy positions for our party's nominee.
Newt Gingrich, who is apparently the nominee of choice for many influential conservatives including Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, likewise fails on these two points. Gingrich's personal negatives are high, especially among independents and women, and he consistently polls much worse than Romney in nationwide and state-by-state matchups against Obama. Many of the qualities that make him appealing to GOP primary voters -- his bombthrowing rhetorical style, his tendency toward grand but controversial ideas, his open contempt for the media -- are likely to be liabilities in a general election.
In addition to Gingrich's obvious electability issues, I find his personal character and past leadership to be deeply lacking. Anyone who believes that personal integrity and morality is key to effective leadership should have grave concerns about a President Gingrich. Not once, but twice, Newt Gingrich committed adultery and divorced his wife in order to marry his mistress. Other ingredients in these sordid affairs were delinquent child support payments by Gingrich, the fact that both of the first two wives were suffering serious health problems at the time he was cheating on them, and allegations by his second wife that he wanted an open marriage. It is especially distressing to me that so many Christian conservatives seem indifferent to these character flaws, and the hypocrisy of "values voters" voting in such large numbers for Gingrich in South Carolina is certainly not lost on non-Christians.
Of course, Gingrich's adulterous behavior is far from his only character flaw. His ego appears to be nearly as big as Obama's, and his leadership style is erratic and undisciplined. Although he deserves great credit for leading the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, he proved to be an ineffective Speaker of the House and was forced out of leadership by his own party after only two terms. Few of his former colleagues have endorsed him, and many of them, including Tom Coburn, Tom DeLay, and Bob Dole, have sharply criticized him as a bullying egomaniac who was perfectly willing to sacrifice principle for power. (See this link for an example from Coburn's 2003 book.) His lobbyist connections to Freddie Mac, his criticisms of Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to tackle entitlements, his recent socialist-style attacks on Romney's business background with Bain Capital, and his past positions on federal health care mandates, climate change, and amnesty for illegal immigrants -- all of these things call into question Gingrich's claim that he is the conservative alternative to Romney. If we are going to sacrifice electability to get the most conservative candidate, we should at least make sure that the less electable candidate we are selecting is a principled and consistent conservative! It seems to me that the perception that Gingrich is more conservative than Romney is based far more on style than on substance.
With Paul and Gingrich off the table, the only other alternative to Romney is Rick Santorum. Unlike Paul or Gingrich, Santorum is an acceptable nominee in my opinion, and I could cast a primary vote for him with a clear conscience. I believe him to be a decent and devout man and a consistent conservative. Unfortunately, I also think it is highly unlikely that he could win a general election contest against Obama. Santorum's blowout Senate loss in Pennsylvania in 2006, his heavy emphasis on issues like abortion and gay marriage, his tendency to alternate between whining and bragging in the debates, and his poor showing in primary polling and voting in every state other than Iowa, call into question his ability to appeal to the broad spectrum of Republican and independent voters needed to win the White House.
That brings us back to Mitt Romney. Romney clearly is qualified to be President. His list of accomplishments include running several successful businesses, turning around a financially-troubled Olympic Commitee, and getting elected as a Republican and successfully governing a state that is usually very hostile to Republicans. These accomplishments demonstrate both an understanding of the free market and substantial executive experience. He is personally wealthy, but his wealth is largely self-made rather than inherited. From the debates I have watched, he comes across as knowledgeable and reasonably eloquent, and his answers and opinions seem consistent with conservative principles to me. His positions on the issues seem to be unchanged from 2008, when Rush Limbaugh was touting him as the presidential candidate most capable of uniting the three main factions of the Republican party (social conservatives, national defense conservatives, and economic conservatives). He appears to support the free markets and capitalism, support decreasing job-killing regulations, support developing our oil resources, oppose illegal immigration, oppose tax increases, support a strong military, and believe in American exceptionalism. There is no doubt in my mind he would sign a repeal of ObamaCare as well as most other conservative legislation sent to him by a Republican legislature. He is not as outspoken about reforming entitlements and drastically reducing spending as I would like, but he is still far better than Obama and probably no worse than Gingrich and Santorum.
Although his positions on the issues clearly seem conservative to me, he has appeal to independents and moderates because he avoids using inflammatory rhetoric, presents himself as a practical problem-solver, and was forced to govern as a centrist while governor of Massachusetts (due to the state's overwhelmingly Democratic legislature). For these reasons, he polls very competitively against Obama and is far more popular than his GOP rivals among the critical independent voting bloc.
Although Romney has been consistent throughout this campaign and his previous campaign for president in his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage positions, many Christian conservatives remain suspicious of him because of the fact that he was once pro-choice and the perception that he is a typical liberal Massachusetts Republican. I found this letter, signed by numerous social conservative leaders from the state, to be very reassuring, and I would encourage everyone who doubts Romney's commitment to traditional family values to read it. It is clear that pro-life and pro-family organizations in Massachusetts considered Romney to be a rare friend and ally. Ironically, the very fact that Romney is a Mormon -- a sore point for some evangelicals -- reassures me even further that Romney's socially conservative beliefs are probably sincere. On other policy issues too, including RomneyCare, it is easy to fault Romney for not being a perfect conservative during his time as governor, but it appears that he accomplished as much as he could given the opposition he faced. Does anyone doubt that Massachusetts would have passed a government health care law, with or without Romney?
No, Romney is not a perfect candidate. He needs to do much better at convincing the GOP base that he is a conservative and is their ally. He can come across as emotionally detached and insincere, and his upscale background can make it hard for him to connect to working class voters. He has deviated from conservative ideology significantly in the past, although the most damning quotes are all a decade or more old. He needs to sharpen his attacks on Obama in the months ahead. But overall, Romney is an acceptable nominee and the best option that I see right now, since my candidates of choice Mike Pence and Mitch Daniels chose not to run. And don't underestimate the importance of choosing a nominee who can beat Obama. Every conservative should be able to agree that Romney would be a dramatic improvement over Obama, and having a "pure conservative" nominee like Santorum is useless if it only results in four more years of the most left-wing administration our country has ever had.
It has been a divisive primary, largely because of the weaknesses of the candidates running. The voters will have a chance to speak tomorrow in Florida, and in many other states over the next couple of months. I believe that Republicans voters should and will rally around Romney as the best of the available options. Once he is the nominee, conservatives everywhere should make it their top priority to get him elected to the White House. To fail to do so would be extremely harmful to our conservative principles and our country.
If I were a Florida primary voter, I would cast my vote for Mitt Romney. The fact that I have come around to supporting Romney is a bit surprising even to me, as I opposed him back in the 2008 presidential primary when many conservatives were supporting him against McCain. As recently as a few months ago, I was deadset against him being the nominee. Even now, unlike many of his fans, I am fully cognizant of his weaknesses, both with regard to his conservative credentials and his electability. He is far from a perfect candidate and far from a slam-dunk against Obama.
My support for Romney boils down to two key points: I believe he is the only candidate left in the race capable of defeating Obama, and I believe he is essentially a decent man, a competent executive, and a reasonably conservative politician who would be an acceptable Republican nominee.
Two of Romney's three remaining competitors fail on both points listed above. I believe Ron Paul is a highly unelectable candidate, for reasons I listed in a previous post, and I also find his positions on certain issues (primarily related to his views on foreign policy and the war against terrorism) to be unacceptable policy positions for our party's nominee.
Newt Gingrich, who is apparently the nominee of choice for many influential conservatives including Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, likewise fails on these two points. Gingrich's personal negatives are high, especially among independents and women, and he consistently polls much worse than Romney in nationwide and state-by-state matchups against Obama. Many of the qualities that make him appealing to GOP primary voters -- his bombthrowing rhetorical style, his tendency toward grand but controversial ideas, his open contempt for the media -- are likely to be liabilities in a general election.
In addition to Gingrich's obvious electability issues, I find his personal character and past leadership to be deeply lacking. Anyone who believes that personal integrity and morality is key to effective leadership should have grave concerns about a President Gingrich. Not once, but twice, Newt Gingrich committed adultery and divorced his wife in order to marry his mistress. Other ingredients in these sordid affairs were delinquent child support payments by Gingrich, the fact that both of the first two wives were suffering serious health problems at the time he was cheating on them, and allegations by his second wife that he wanted an open marriage. It is especially distressing to me that so many Christian conservatives seem indifferent to these character flaws, and the hypocrisy of "values voters" voting in such large numbers for Gingrich in South Carolina is certainly not lost on non-Christians.
Of course, Gingrich's adulterous behavior is far from his only character flaw. His ego appears to be nearly as big as Obama's, and his leadership style is erratic and undisciplined. Although he deserves great credit for leading the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, he proved to be an ineffective Speaker of the House and was forced out of leadership by his own party after only two terms. Few of his former colleagues have endorsed him, and many of them, including Tom Coburn, Tom DeLay, and Bob Dole, have sharply criticized him as a bullying egomaniac who was perfectly willing to sacrifice principle for power. (See this link for an example from Coburn's 2003 book.) His lobbyist connections to Freddie Mac, his criticisms of Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to tackle entitlements, his recent socialist-style attacks on Romney's business background with Bain Capital, and his past positions on federal health care mandates, climate change, and amnesty for illegal immigrants -- all of these things call into question Gingrich's claim that he is the conservative alternative to Romney. If we are going to sacrifice electability to get the most conservative candidate, we should at least make sure that the less electable candidate we are selecting is a principled and consistent conservative! It seems to me that the perception that Gingrich is more conservative than Romney is based far more on style than on substance.
With Paul and Gingrich off the table, the only other alternative to Romney is Rick Santorum. Unlike Paul or Gingrich, Santorum is an acceptable nominee in my opinion, and I could cast a primary vote for him with a clear conscience. I believe him to be a decent and devout man and a consistent conservative. Unfortunately, I also think it is highly unlikely that he could win a general election contest against Obama. Santorum's blowout Senate loss in Pennsylvania in 2006, his heavy emphasis on issues like abortion and gay marriage, his tendency to alternate between whining and bragging in the debates, and his poor showing in primary polling and voting in every state other than Iowa, call into question his ability to appeal to the broad spectrum of Republican and independent voters needed to win the White House.
That brings us back to Mitt Romney. Romney clearly is qualified to be President. His list of accomplishments include running several successful businesses, turning around a financially-troubled Olympic Commitee, and getting elected as a Republican and successfully governing a state that is usually very hostile to Republicans. These accomplishments demonstrate both an understanding of the free market and substantial executive experience. He is personally wealthy, but his wealth is largely self-made rather than inherited. From the debates I have watched, he comes across as knowledgeable and reasonably eloquent, and his answers and opinions seem consistent with conservative principles to me. His positions on the issues seem to be unchanged from 2008, when Rush Limbaugh was touting him as the presidential candidate most capable of uniting the three main factions of the Republican party (social conservatives, national defense conservatives, and economic conservatives). He appears to support the free markets and capitalism, support decreasing job-killing regulations, support developing our oil resources, oppose illegal immigration, oppose tax increases, support a strong military, and believe in American exceptionalism. There is no doubt in my mind he would sign a repeal of ObamaCare as well as most other conservative legislation sent to him by a Republican legislature. He is not as outspoken about reforming entitlements and drastically reducing spending as I would like, but he is still far better than Obama and probably no worse than Gingrich and Santorum.
Although his positions on the issues clearly seem conservative to me, he has appeal to independents and moderates because he avoids using inflammatory rhetoric, presents himself as a practical problem-solver, and was forced to govern as a centrist while governor of Massachusetts (due to the state's overwhelmingly Democratic legislature). For these reasons, he polls very competitively against Obama and is far more popular than his GOP rivals among the critical independent voting bloc.
Although Romney has been consistent throughout this campaign and his previous campaign for president in his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage positions, many Christian conservatives remain suspicious of him because of the fact that he was once pro-choice and the perception that he is a typical liberal Massachusetts Republican. I found this letter, signed by numerous social conservative leaders from the state, to be very reassuring, and I would encourage everyone who doubts Romney's commitment to traditional family values to read it. It is clear that pro-life and pro-family organizations in Massachusetts considered Romney to be a rare friend and ally. Ironically, the very fact that Romney is a Mormon -- a sore point for some evangelicals -- reassures me even further that Romney's socially conservative beliefs are probably sincere. On other policy issues too, including RomneyCare, it is easy to fault Romney for not being a perfect conservative during his time as governor, but it appears that he accomplished as much as he could given the opposition he faced. Does anyone doubt that Massachusetts would have passed a government health care law, with or without Romney?
No, Romney is not a perfect candidate. He needs to do much better at convincing the GOP base that he is a conservative and is their ally. He can come across as emotionally detached and insincere, and his upscale background can make it hard for him to connect to working class voters. He has deviated from conservative ideology significantly in the past, although the most damning quotes are all a decade or more old. He needs to sharpen his attacks on Obama in the months ahead. But overall, Romney is an acceptable nominee and the best option that I see right now, since my candidates of choice Mike Pence and Mitch Daniels chose not to run. And don't underestimate the importance of choosing a nominee who can beat Obama. Every conservative should be able to agree that Romney would be a dramatic improvement over Obama, and having a "pure conservative" nominee like Santorum is useless if it only results in four more years of the most left-wing administration our country has ever had.
It has been a divisive primary, largely because of the weaknesses of the candidates running. The voters will have a chance to speak tomorrow in Florida, and in many other states over the next couple of months. I believe that Republicans voters should and will rally around Romney as the best of the available options. Once he is the nominee, conservatives everywhere should make it their top priority to get him elected to the White House. To fail to do so would be extremely harmful to our conservative principles and our country.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The State of the Union
Here are a few random thoughts on the passing political scene (I think I stole that line from Thomas Sowell).
I (half) watched Obama's State of the Union speech this past week. I wasn't planning to do so, but my wife is teaching a government class this semester and wanted to set a good example for her students by watching it. So I sat in the room with her and listened to the speech in the background while working on other things.
The speech went on and on (over an hour I think) but never seemed to address the real challenges we face as a country. In all those thousands of words, Obama barely touched on the topic of our crippling national debt and completely ignored the vital issue of entitlement spending. In fact, the speech was filled with new spending initiatives and government "solutions." It's all business as usual for Obama. Lots of "investments in our future," which is code for government spending. And as expected, a lot of talk about everyone getting "their fair share" -- Obama is obsessed with income inequality. His only suggestion for fixing our debt problem is to make the rich pay a lot more in taxes. Never mind that the wealthiest 10% already pay pretty much all the taxes and that about 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Never mind that, even if the U.S. government confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, it would still be less than just the current year's budget deficit under Obama.
There was so much irony in the speech, for those who have been following Obama's actions as President. He talked a lot about working together for the good of the country -- ironic coming from a President who has done so much to divide us and has made zero effort to reach out to the other side of the political spectrum. He talked about Washington's failures, apparently unaware that he himself is the face of Washington and Washington's failures are his failures. He bragged about oil and gas production during his first term, even though he did everything he could to oppose it, including dramatically cutting back on federal oil and gas leases, banning certain offshore drilling, and opposing the Keystone pipeline. He complained about not being able to get quick up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees, even though he repeatedly joined his party in filibustering Bush nominees as a U.S. Senator. He praised the results of the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, and just a few short minutes later came down hard against bailouts. Against all evidence, he insisted that our relationship with Israel is stronger than it has ever been and that America is not in decline.
Most bizarrely, Obama's idea of an inspiring ending was to say that "this nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs.” Yeah, that's great if you're describing your teenage son's soccer team. We've come a long way from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The Republican response, given by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, was everything Obama's speech was not -- short, concise, and focused on the important stuff. Here are some excerpts from the speech that are well worth reading:
In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours....
We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves....
The routes back to an America of promise, and to a solvent America that can pay its bills and protect its vulnerable, start in the same place. The only way up for those suffering tonight, and the only way out of the dead end of debt into which we have driven, is a private economy that begins to grow and create jobs, real jobs, at a much faster rate than today....
The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.
That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years....
The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.
It’s absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. There are smart ways and dumb ways to do this: the dumb way is to raise rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system, choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. The better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth....
As a loyal opposition, who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and solvency is our ally, and our friend. We will speak the language of unity. Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait.
I (half) watched Obama's State of the Union speech this past week. I wasn't planning to do so, but my wife is teaching a government class this semester and wanted to set a good example for her students by watching it. So I sat in the room with her and listened to the speech in the background while working on other things.
The speech went on and on (over an hour I think) but never seemed to address the real challenges we face as a country. In all those thousands of words, Obama barely touched on the topic of our crippling national debt and completely ignored the vital issue of entitlement spending. In fact, the speech was filled with new spending initiatives and government "solutions." It's all business as usual for Obama. Lots of "investments in our future," which is code for government spending. And as expected, a lot of talk about everyone getting "their fair share" -- Obama is obsessed with income inequality. His only suggestion for fixing our debt problem is to make the rich pay a lot more in taxes. Never mind that the wealthiest 10% already pay pretty much all the taxes and that about 50% of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Never mind that, even if the U.S. government confiscated all the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, it would still be less than just the current year's budget deficit under Obama.
There was so much irony in the speech, for those who have been following Obama's actions as President. He talked a lot about working together for the good of the country -- ironic coming from a President who has done so much to divide us and has made zero effort to reach out to the other side of the political spectrum. He talked about Washington's failures, apparently unaware that he himself is the face of Washington and Washington's failures are his failures. He bragged about oil and gas production during his first term, even though he did everything he could to oppose it, including dramatically cutting back on federal oil and gas leases, banning certain offshore drilling, and opposing the Keystone pipeline. He complained about not being able to get quick up-or-down votes on his judicial nominees, even though he repeatedly joined his party in filibustering Bush nominees as a U.S. Senator. He praised the results of the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, and just a few short minutes later came down hard against bailouts. Against all evidence, he insisted that our relationship with Israel is stronger than it has ever been and that America is not in decline.
Most bizarrely, Obama's idea of an inspiring ending was to say that "this nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs.” Yeah, that's great if you're describing your teenage son's soccer team. We've come a long way from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The Republican response, given by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, was everything Obama's speech was not -- short, concise, and focused on the important stuff. Here are some excerpts from the speech that are well worth reading:
In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours....
We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves....
The routes back to an America of promise, and to a solvent America that can pay its bills and protect its vulnerable, start in the same place. The only way up for those suffering tonight, and the only way out of the dead end of debt into which we have driven, is a private economy that begins to grow and create jobs, real jobs, at a much faster rate than today....
The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.
That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years....
The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.
It’s absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. There are smart ways and dumb ways to do this: the dumb way is to raise rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system, choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. The better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth....
As a loyal opposition, who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and solvency is our ally, and our friend. We will speak the language of unity. Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
My Thoughts on Ron Paul
I started writing a blog post about Ron Paul a few weeks ago, when he was a threat to win the Iowa caucus. I never got a chance to finish it, but I decided to revisit the topic after reading the link A.K. posted on the blog earlier today. I'm a little hesitant to write too much about Ron Paul, because my opinions about him put me at odds with a lot of people I care about, including family members. But during this GOP primary season, he has made himself pretty hard to ignore, and I have to be honest about what I think.
First of all, I must say that I agree with Ron Paul on many issues -- some of which are well expressed by the Voddie Baucham article linked in the previous post. I do believe that Paul is a sincere Christian and a highly principled politician who holds the Constitution in high regard. I agree that he is the most committed of all candidates currently running for political office to dramatically cutting federal spending and controlling the burgeoning power of the federal government. While I think Paul may be overly obsessed with the Federal Reserve, he does raise valid concerns about its manipulation of currency. (A.K. is far more knowledgeable about this topic than I.) And I like his emphasis on individual liberty. However, although I probably agree with him on more issues than I disagree with him, I consider the areas of disagreement to be important enough and the degree of those disagreements to be sharp enough that I absolutely could not vote for him in the Republican primary. I would vote for him in a general election against Obama, but that is not saying much because I would vote for my cat over Obama as well.
Let me present, as best as I can, the reasons why I could not vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.
1.His position on terrorism. He believes that non-U.S. citizens, including enemy combatants, are entitled to the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. He believes that Guantanamo Bay should be shut down and that the foreign terrorists currently being held there should be brought to America and tried in civilian courts, rather than military tribunals (much like Obama and Eric Holder!). He does not believe the government should be permitted to use any kind of enhanced interrogation techniques on captured terrorists, even if it could lead to information that will prevent terrorist attacks and save lives (as it has). He opposes the Patriot Act, which I believe provides vital intelligence-gathering tools to the government to foil terrorist plots. I do not believe these anti-terrorism measures are unconstitutional, and I previously linked to some excellent articles by Andrew McCarthy related to these topics that explain why they are not unconstitutional.
In fact, Paul has repeatedly expressed his opinion that the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself -- at least to a certain extent -- by its foreign policy decisions, a view which both minimizes the sheer evil of terrorism and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of radical Islam which underlies 9/11 and other attacks. According to Eric Dondero, a long-time former senior aide, Paul "was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.... He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration." Dondero says that Paul was planning to vote "no" on the resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan, but changed his mind at the last minute, perhaps realizing that a no vote would be political suicide. Paul even questioned our recent killing of Osama bin Laden. I believe that Ron Paul's position on terrorism would put our country in grave danger from radical Islamic terrorism -- in violation of his most fundamental duty as Commander-in-Chief which is to keep our country safe from foreign enemies.
2. His anti-Americanism. Ron Paul always seems to rush to the most negative judgment about our country and our involvement in the world. In the presidential debates, he has parroted left-wing lies about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as calling them "blood for oil" and
"wars of occupation and aggression" and saying we declared "war on 1.2 billion Muslims." He accused the Americans who justifiably spoke out against the Islamic Center near Ground Zero of being Islamophobic, saying that "neo-conservatives never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."
Worst of all, there is evidence that he sympathizes with "9/11 truthers," people who believe that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job carried out by the U.S. government. While Paul has long associated with crazies who believe this, the link here shows a recent video of Paul answering a question from a supporter about "why [he] won't come out about the truth about 9/11," an obvious reference to "truther" conspiracy claims. Paul's response? "Because I can’t handle the controversy, I have the IMF, the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with, because, no, because I just have more-too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do." It seems obvious to me that Paul agrees with the truthers, but he won't come out and say it because it would be too controversial. And Paul apparently has been greatly influenced an old friend named Lew Rockwell, whose libertarian website has published some incredibly nasty things about the U.S. military (see this post for an example).
3. His foreign policy beliefs. Ron Paul believes that we should dramatically cut funding for our military and withdraw our troops from all their bases and locations around the world (everywhere from Germany to the Korean border). He has publicly stated that our country faces no threat from Iran and believes they have a perfect right to acquire nuclear weapons. He is against all trade sanctions, even with countries like Iran and Cuba.
Quoting Dondero again, Paul is "most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the American taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs." These claims are consistent with everything I have heard him say relating to Israel. While I agree with Voddie Baucham that the U.S. is not obligated to always agree with Israel, I think we should recognize Israel as virtually the only country in the Middle East that shares our democratic values and stands side-by-side with us against terrorism. Dondero also said that Paul "strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times that 'saving the Jews' was absolutely none of our business." This is also a believable claim about Paul, since such a view is common in radical libertarian circles.
4. His slanders against fellow Republicans. During a recent campaign speech in Iowa, Paul said that immediately following the 9/11 attacks, "there was glee in the (Bush) administration, because now we can invade Iraq." This is a nasty slander against Bush that is entirely contradicted both by the shock, horror, and anger exhibited by Bush and his top aides following the attacks, and also by the fact that the war in Iraq did not start for well over a year after 9/11. Paul also recently appeared on the Jay Leno show, where he accused Michele Bachmann of hating Muslims simply because of her mainstream Republican beliefs about Iran and terrorism, and suggested Rick Santorum also hated Muslims and gays. He wants to be accepted and respected as a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination, but he shows little respect for his fellow Republicans. His loyalty to the party he wants to represent is questionable at best, since he left the party once before to run as a third party presidential candidate, and has not ruled out doing so again this year.
5. His support for the legalization of drugs. I am somewhat open to the idea of legalizing comparatively harmless drugs like marijuana, but Paul supports the legalization of all drugs, even hardcore ones like heroin, crystal meth, and cocaine. While the war on drugs has been costly for the U.S., I believe that it would be more costly for these dangerous and highly addictive drugs to be legal and readily available. Paul has even suggested that U.S. policy on this issue deliberately targets African-Americans for tougher sentences and therefore is racist -- a charge that would seem to be more at home in a Democratic debate than a Republican one.
6. His utterly unrealistic candidacy. Ron Paul supporters disagree with me, of course, but I believe that it is virtually impossible for Paul to be elected to the presidency. If, through some scenario almost impossible to imagine, he were to win the GOP nomination, he would split the party, since more than 60% of Republicans in polls say that he is an "unacceptable" nominee. The Left, which has been pretty nice to him so far, would turn on him with a vengeance and viciously attack him for all kinds of out-of-the-mainstream comments and votes. Remember those old racist newsletters published under Paul's name in the 1990's and Paul's disapproving comments about the Civil Rights Act? We'll be hearing a lot more about those things, courtesy of the media. (And to be honest, I think those issues raise real concerns about him too, even though I do not believe he is personally racist.) And even if he could get elected, he would not be able to accomplish anything close to what his supporters think he could accomplish. With almost no institutional support from either party, he would probably be unable to deliver on nearly all of his agenda. You think the outcry is loud now when Republican propose even modest adjustments to Medicare and Social Security? Imagine when Ron Paul comes on the scene and starts proposing eliminating dozens of departments and agencies!
I have tried to explain, in the limited time available to me, the major reasons why I could not vote for Ron Paul. Some of his supporters agree with Paul on most of the points listed above. Many others who support him disagree with many of these more extreme positions and statements, but still support him because they think his integrity and intention to dramatically shrink government make up for his shortcomings. Personally, I am bothered by the personality cult that seems to surround Paul, and the fact that many of his supporters seem to believe he is the only acceptable candidate and the only hope for America (Voddie Baucham does not).
But I also believe that there are many good people supporting Ron Paul, and the Republican party should treat Paul and his supporters with respect and should not take them for granted. Partly I believe this because the Republicans need the votes of many of his supporters in the general election. But I also believe this because the Republican party would do well to follow Paul's lead on many issues relating to our federal spending and our national debt. If he can influence the party to become more focused on restoring our country's economic liberty and fiscal solvency, then our party and our country will both benefit from his presence in the race.
Under no circumstances, though, do I think he should be the GOP nominee!
"Why Ron Paul?"
I have a feeling this will stir things up. But that's ok. This is an excellent post by Voddie Baucham about why he supports Ron Paul. I think he does an excellent job of summing up Ron Paul's positions on many issues. I was also interested to read his discussion of Ron Paul's support/non-support (depending on who says it) of Israel. I am curious to hear what people have to say about this (assuming anyone's reading) so please comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)