After the New Hampshire primary I got to thinking. Everyone has their theories about what happened. McCain much bigger than expected and Hillary won when Obama was supposed to win big. What happened?
I think it was a combination of two things. Remember in 2000, many Democrats crossed over to Republican primaries to vote for John McCain. After all, he’s the Republican most palatable to Democrats (which ought to say something to Republicans, particularly conservatives). I believe that a lot of Democrats who supported Obama were convinced Obama had it wrapped up so they crossed over to the Republican primary to vote for McCain. That explains both unexpected results.
But I think there was something else in play and that was Hillary’s little crying spell. There was plenty of speculation on the right that her little emotional outburst would hurt her. I mean, who wants a chief executive and commander in chief who is ruled by emotions? Apparently the answer to that question is many Democrats. Hillary’s emotional outburst brought a lot of Democrats over to her side which, to me, is just frightening.
Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher having a similar emotional outburst in public? I certainly can’t and had she ever done so her political career would have been over. Would we want an emotional outburst in the middle of delicate negotiations with a hostile foreign government when things weren’t going well? Would that be beneficial to us?
Some might say that Hillary wouldn’t do that in such a situation? Perhaps but if true that means that she reserves such outbursts for when they are beneficial. The implication is she judged that an emotional outburst was called for in that case.
I remember an episode of Star Trek where Captain Kirk accused Mr. Spock of having an emotional outburst. Spock’s response was that his actions had been logical. The situation was clearly desperate so desperate action was called for. Either that applies to Mrs. Clinton which makes it pure manipulation or she can’t be trusted to remain cool under pressure. Either case is unpleasant.
But in the end the really frightening part is that Democrats want that sort of thing in their president.
It’s late on caucus night and I’m about to go to bed. I’ll have more to say tomorrow but I didn’t want to close the evening without a few comments about the Iowa caucus and my predictions.
I nailed Huckabee. He won with a significant margin. I was off on Romney and McCain. McCain didn’t get the bounce I expected because Thompson did better than I expected. While I would have liked to see Romney come in third, I’m not at all unhappy with the outcome. I’m glad Thompson ended up in a tie with McCain and I’m really glad Huckabee did so well.
I don’t know that Thompson will be able to hold on past New Hampshire. He did better than I expected today but I don’t think he did well enough. At this point I still think Huckabee is the best bet for conservatives, despite all the claims by Rush and others that he’s not a conservative. No, he’s not Reagan, Rush is right about that. No one in this race is Reagan. But I’m excited about Huckabee.
Just a note about the Democrat caucus. That Hillary came in third is HUGE! I’m no fan of Edwards (he’s totally vapid) but I was rooting him on tonight. Hillary’s campaign is in no way derailed but this is a real hit and she’ll have to rethink he campaign strategy now. It will be interesting to see what she does next.
More tomorrow.
Happy New Year to you all. It’s 2008, election year. Last year saw this blog really slow down in terms of posts. I hope to change that this year with the primaries looming and the elections in November. I even got a little flack from my dad today for my lack of posting. So I’m going to try to pick up the pace a little, starting with the Iowa caucus coming up on Thursday.
It’s going to be an interesting years. Who will win the White House? Will the Democrats expand their margin in Congress or will the Republicans be able to capitalize on the missteps of a lack luster Democrat Congress? These an other questions will be addressed in the weeks and months ahead. I hope you’ll come along for the ride and maybe even participate rather than just read what I have to say.
It has always been my goal to stimulate conversation and discussion, not just get readers. That’s why I have comments open, I want to hear what you think. I’m open to Democrat opinions too, just don’t expect me to agree very often. But I’m open to discussion.
As for the conservatives in the audience, we have to buckle down and get to work if we’re going to bring the Republican Party around to our way of thinking. We have to support conservative candidates with our money and our energy. Without that support we will have nothing to complain about when RINOs run the party and conservatives aren’t elected. It’s up to us folks.
I’m looking forward to 2008. I’m looking forward to following and blogging the primaries and the election. It’s going to be a very interesting year!
Regular readers of this blog know that I am no fan of President Bush. But the extent to which some on the left will go to Bash him is beyond ridiculous. The fires in Southern California are a case in point. While people are still losing their homes, the left is busy politicizing the situation. Barbara Boxer took the opportunity to claim that because of the war in Iraq the California National Guard did not have enough equipment for the situation. Not to be outdone, Lt. Governor John Garamendi complained about Bush’s visit in the midst of the crisis. Asked by leftist moron Chris Matthews if Bush’s visit would distract from the firefighting efforts, Garamendi said it certainly would. Of course, if Bush did not make a trip to California, he would most certainly have been castigated for that. Oh, and don’t forget that the fires are the result of global warming which is also Bush’s fault.
As I said, I am not a fan of George Bush. Other than judicial nominations and tax cuts, he has not impressed me much. But the level of partisan attacks is simply amazing. There are plenty of Democrats I dislike intensely but I cannot imagine going to such lengths to demonize them. What makes Democrats so unable to act rationally when it comes to George Bush? I know, they all think he stole the 2000 and 2004 elections but that cannot be all there is too it because it’s not just Bush they do this too. Harry Reid and others tried it with Rush Limbaugh and got humiliated for their trouble.
I wonder how this country can possibly pull together and move forward as one nation with so many willing to go to such lengths to destroy others. Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general love to bemoan the politics of personal destruction but the reality is they not only invented the strategy, they have elevated to an art form. They are constantly assisted by their willing accomplices in the media, like Chris Matthews asking such an asinine question to Garamendo above. And much of their rank and file seem to just eat it up. There is never any shortage of moonbats willing to come out to prevent some conservative from speaking somewhere. But you never see similar actions from the right. Doesn’t this tell you something?
Whether you are a conservative or not you must admit that conservatives are far more rational. We don’t go around making wild accusations and blaming liberals for everything from the sun rising to the rain falling. And we don’t make any effort at all to silence those with whom we disagree. We are perfectly content to debate the merits of our arguments. Not so liberals. They cannot tolerate dissenting opinions unless it is their dissenting opinion.
So if you are a liberal give this a little thought. If your argument is superior, why can’t you let it stand in the arena of ideas? If your ideas are better, why do you need to personally attack those who disagree with you rather than debate their arguments. The only real reason anyone ever has far such actions is they don’t believe their arguments can prevail. Otherwise why go to such lengths to silence or discredit your opponents? Of course, lust for power might just enter in somewhere.
When I spoke to Mark May [sic-Mays], he and I thought this probably wouldn’t make much money-a letter, written by Democrat Senators, complaining about something…[T]he [final] bid [was] more than two million for this… Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature… I don’t know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.
These are the words of Senate Majority Leader “Dingy” Harry Reid. I cannot imagine the nerve required to actually take credit for the $4.2 million raised. Reid and the 41 Senators who signed the letter were challenged by Rush Limbaugh to individually match the winning bid, just as Limbaugh himself was doing. The winning bid ended up being $2.1 million so with Rush’s match the total was $4.3 million. Reid didn’t match a single cent! But the man still took credit for it. He has no shame!
Reid is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Tom Daschle. You will recall that Daschle was continually shocked at anything conservatives did. You will also recall that Daschle received his walking papers from his constituents in 2004. Reid is on track to follow Daschle right out of office. Power Line Blog yesterday reported that Reid’s approval rating in Nevada is below President Bush’s and it appears to be falling.
Reid and his Democrat colleagues in Congress have yet to figure out that the American people are sick and tired of partisanship for the sake of partisanship. Even a poll on the DailyKOS asking the question, “Do you approve of the way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing his job?” has Reid with 82% saying no with more than 15,000 responses as of 7:30 this evening.
I would not argue against partisanship when there is a clear difference on policy. But Congressional Democrats, lead by Reid and Pelosi, are determined to take any action to deny President Bush a victory if they can and it is taking a toll on them. Congressional approval ratings are consistently lower than President Bush’s, taking away the ability of the Democrats to point to Bush’s low ratings. Doing so focuses attention on their own even lower ratings.
Republicans, on the other hand, are benefiting right now. Whether you are agree with them or not, they appear to be taking principled positions rather than engaging in politics as usual like the Democrats. Should Democrats continue on their current path into the ‘08 elections it will present an opportunity to Republicans. Conventional wisdom says that Republicans will suffer more losses in the House and Senate in ‘08. That view is further bolstered by the fact that so many Republican incumbents in Congress have announced they will not seek reelection next year. Yet the environment is ripe for Republicans, if they can unify behind a conservative message and solid candidates, to spank the Democrats. Should that happen, it will impact the Presidential election as well. We are accustomed to candidates riding a presidential candidate’s coat tails but this time around it could conceivably be the other way around. This isn’t a prediction so much as it is a possible strategy if Republicans will only do it.
If I hear the phrase “under the bill” one more time regarding “comprehensive immigration reform” I think I will throw up. I was listening to Chertoff on Cavuto this afternoon and every time Cavuto brought up conservative objections, Chertoff’s response was “under the bill…” I’m convinced they are being intentionally obtuse. We’ve repeated over and over that we don’t trust the government to do what the bill says.
We’ve been down this road before and all the evidence says the government isn’t serious about controlling the border or doing anything about illegals already here except to give them a pass. Of course, that just creates more incentive for more illegals to cross the boarder the government has shown no interest in securing. So why on earth should we trust them when they tell us that “under the bill” this and that will happen.
Chertoff, et. al. know this full well. Lindsey Graham knows this. All of them know this. We’ve said it ad nauseum! They simply choose to ignore what we say and go on calling us bigots and talking about what the bill will do. The fact is, current law calls for a fence that isn’t getting built. Current law calls for border enforcement. There is no need for another law to do these things. Yet Bush, Chertoff and the rest have no interest in enforcing current law. So WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM to enforce a new law? There is simply no reason to trust them.
A common definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The Bush administration and its lackeys in Congress apparently assume the electorate is insane. We should trust them to do the same thing they always done and expect them to actually enforce the law this time! I don’t think so.
I like the idea I heard on the Laura Ingraham show today. Lets just start calling them former, as in former Senator Lindsey Graham and former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. I’ve already started working to unseat Lindsey Graham and there is a groundswell against him in South Carolina.
So if you are tempted to buy this line the “under the bill” they will secure the border and there will be a fence and there are triggers, don’t you believe it. They have to earn our trust. If your friend lies to you, you might give them another chance. But if they lie to you repeatedly, it takes a long, sustained effort of earning trust before you will be willing to trust them again. The same is true of our government. Let’s all assume the state motto of Oklahoma: Show Me! The only way they can show me is to start enforcing the law now and sustain that effort for an extended period of time. Then and only then, come back and maybe we’ll talk. But until they do that, there is absolutely no reason to trust them.
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
: Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
President Bush, along with RINOs Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Democrat Ted Kennedy, have reached a “compromise” for comprehensive immigration reform. That phrase, “comprehensive immigration reform” is code for amnesty. President Bush announced that the plan does not grant amnesty but any bill that allows aliens currently in this country illegally to pay a fine and get on a “path to citizenship” or permanent residency is an amnesty bill.
Virtually no one likes this bill. Backers are reluctant to discuss specifics beyond saying illegals will have to pay a fine and return home for a period of time. It is unlikely that the return home will be enforced or, if enforced, that illegals will have to stay for any significant period of time. How do you track more the more than 12 million people? Maybe set up another inefficient federal agency? And a $5,000 fine is a price many around the world would gladly pay for legal entrance into the united states. Yet those who have not entered this country illegally don’t get any special treatment and path toward citizenship.
Additionally, the Z visa only requires the head of household to return to the home country. His family can stay and there is no real idea of just how long he might have to stay in his home country but one official said it could be as short as one day. Convince me that won’t encourage more illegal immigration! Only a fool could believe that tail.
While this compromise seems historic, it appears there is still an uphill battle. Both conservatives and liberals have problems with it. Conservatives, of course, oppose the amnesty aspect of the proposal. Liberals oppose the change in immigration standards away from uniting families and toward more emphasis on skills.
Still, there is great interest on both sides of the aisle for passing some kind of comprehensive immigration reform this year. With that attitude, it is all but certain that, without outside effort, this will become a reality in some form before it’s all over. Conservatives must stay in touch with their Senators and Congressmen and keep the pressure on. This must be stopped. Amnesty did not work 20 some odd years ago and it won’t work today.
For my money, the way to deal with illegals currently in this country is to make it so painful for companies to employee them that simply won’t take the risk. When illegals find they cannot find work and support their families, much less send money back home, they will go home voluntarily. If there is not reason to be here, why would the stay? The incentives to come here illegally must be removed. That, along with real border enforcement will solve our problem. Then and only then we can look at a guest worker program and at that point, those who can speak English will have an advantage, regardless of whether they were previously here illegally
Meanwhile, Fred Thompson said that the bill and the attempt to create any comprehensive immigration reform should be scrapped until the border is secured. YEAH! That’s a position I can really get behind.
Sorry but I stole that headline from Family Research Council. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has said the decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the federal partial birth abortion ban should have included O’Connor instead of Alito. The clear implication is that it would have been decided the other way under such circumstances. But Reid has repeatedly described himself as pro-life. Indeed, every time there has been an opportunity to vote on a partial birth abortion ban, Reid has voted in favor of. Reid, in fact, voted for the very law the Supreme Court ruled on in this case. So Reid apparently wants it both ways. He wants to go on record as support pro-life legislation but he doesn’t actually want such legislation to become law.
On another front, Reid again shot himself in the foot. This week at the National Press Club Reid said that the war in Iraq is lost.
So Reid believes that the war is lost and the the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State know this to be true. At the same time, Reid does not support withdrawing funding for the war. This is the height of hypocrisy and Harry Reid is on the verge of committing treason. Democrats in general have constantly engaged in activity that encourages our enemies for the purpose of consolidating political power. Now Reid has given considerable aid and comfort to our enemies by declaring that we have lost this war.
Harry Reid is either a moron or he is so consumed with political power that he will do and say anything to gain it. Either way he has no business being in the Senate. His constituents should do whatever it takes to replace him. Tom Daschle discovered that there was a price to pay for demagoguery and it is high time his replacement made the same discovery.
Much is being said in the halls of Congress these days about the “fact” that Congress is a co-equal branch of government. As such, the argument goes, Congress has the authority to reign in the President’s plans with respect to the Iraq war. There have even been plans floated to limit the number of troops the President can place in Iraq, for example. The purpose of this post is to examine the rationale for this co-equal claim and to see if the Constitution supports it.
My first question is, what does co-equal mean? The Constitution grants specific duties and authority to each branch of government. While there is some overlap, generally each branch has different responsibilities and powers than the other branches. Congress, for example, has the power to create and pass legislation. The President and the judiciary do not. The President, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces while the Congress and the judiciary are not. In what sense then can the three branches of government be said to be co-equal?
I submit that the very term “co-equal” is meaningless and that those using it do so not out of any realistic claims to authority but to put forth a propaganda campaign to a populace largely uneducated with regard to constitutional powers and the structure of government. They simply make a claim and expect Americans to accept it. The fact is, no branch is equal to another branch. All branches of government are equally important but they are not equal any more than an apple equals an orange.
Congress does indeed have one large power that could be used to effectively end the war in Iraq. That power is the ability to cut off funding. Our founding fathers gave them that power and it is completely legitimate. Using it, however, is a politically risky proposition. While Congress can cut of funding for the war, that does not obligate the President to bring the troops home. The President could, for example, continue the campaign in Iraq without funding and place the responsibility for the outcome on the Congress. At this juncture it is doubtful that Congress will take such a drastic step.
What other constitutional power does Congress have with regard to the war? None. Congress can pass non-binding resolutions every day for the duration of the session and their actions will not require anything of the President. He can go on his way doing what he is doing. True, they can make him pay a political price but they have no authority to force him to do anything militarily.
Claims that Congress has the authority to limit troops in this or that theater are false. True, Congress can pass any legislation it wants, including legislation mandating that the President limit troop strengths. The President, however, would be under no obligation to pay any attention to such legislation because the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority for passing it.
The caveat here is the judiciary. Regardless of Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for upholding legislation that is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is but one example. So in any action the Congress may take, the Supreme Court becomes a wild card.
In the event that Congress passes legislation restricting troop strengths, the President would have several options. He could ignore such legislation and do what he thinks best with the troops in which case Congress would almost certainly sue the President in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the President could sue Congress immediately. Either course leads to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule against the President in such a situation, I submit that the President would have the Constitutional authority to ignore such a ruling. Indeed, the judiciary depends entirely on the executive for enforcement of its decisions. If the courts make a decision that clearly violates the Constitution I submit that the President not only has the ability to go against it, he has the duty to do so.
Lest anyone think I am engaging in partisan hyperbole let me say that my view on this does not depend on who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. While I would likely disagree with much of what a Democrat President stood for, his Constitutional authority does not depend on his positions on issues or his party affiliation. By definition, constitutional authority derives from the Constitution. Therefore, any President is duty bound to take his oath of office seriously and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. That includes the courts when they blatantly disregard the Constitution in favor of their own ideology.
The bottom line is this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such it falls to him how and when to use them. Congress can bluster all it wants but they cannot change that balance of power.
For well over a year there have been calls from Democrats to increase troop strength to deal with the “insurgency” in Iraq. Speaker Pelosi herself said more than a year ago that’s what she would do. Now, President Bush has basically admitted that he made a mistake in not sending enough troops to secure Iraq and he wants to send twenty thousand more troops to get the job done. Predictably, the Democrats will not support the President on this.
It has been painfully clear to me for some time that the Democrats do not oppose the President’s ideas per se. What they really oppose is any possibility of a Bush success. The Democrats would rather lose the war in Iraq than allow a Bush victory there. They apparently believe they can deal with the mess later and if they can’t, they can blame in on Republicans. It’s all about winning the White House in ‘08.
This is an extremely short sighted view. I certainly understand either party pulling out the stops to win the White House. But are there no stops that should remain? How far is too far to go in the name winning power? It’s been often said that in times past politics stopped at the water’s edge but those days are long behind us.
The reality is, we are not engaged in a battle for control of the US government. We are engaged in a war for the very survival of western civilization. What I cannot understand is why Democrats can’t grasp that fact. It’s not just that losing in Iraq would be damaging to American prestige around the world, although it would. It’s not just that losing in Iraq will strengthen Iran, even though it will. The reality is this. If we don’t “do what is required” to defeat Islamic fascism our very existence as a free society will be in jeopardy.
There have been plenty of mistakes in Iraq. I have believed almost from the beginning that we needed more troops there. Regular readers know that I am not a big Bush supporter. He has made mistakes. But he, at least, seems to grasp the ramifications of a US lose in Iraq. He understands that we face, perhaps, the most dangerous, insidious enemy we have ever faced as a nation and as a civilization.
President Bush has my support in increasing troop strength in Iraq by twenty thousand and I say increase it even more if necessary. As Churchill said, sometimes is is not enough to do our best. Sometimes we must do what is required, regardless of the cost. Our forbears understood that and they did what was required. Are we willing to do the same today. Is freedom worth fighting and dying for? I say it is.
