NO COMPARISON

Now it is all but official. John McCain has little, or nothing, between him and the Republican nomination. The rest of the primaries might be nothing more than formalities.


Mitt Romney has stepped aside, leaving Mike Huckabee angling for the Number Two spot in McCain's inexorable drive to the Republican nomination. Ron Paul, playing to part of the "crazy uncle in the attic that no one likes to talk about", is still in the race. Of course, that is merely for comic relief at this point.


Having read the speeches today of both Romney and McCain, I thought that a comparison would be in order. The two candidates show remarkably different attitudes toward Conservatives.


John McCain finds himself in terra incognita. His is one of the only campaigns that, having secured the nomination (or all but the signature on the document) he has to go back and secure his base. Ever since Richard Nixon, Republican candidates had to make more Conservative noises to gain the nomination, and then had to move "toward the center" to secure the election itself. Similarly, Democrats had to appease their most Liberal base for the nomination and move to the center in the general election. John McCain finds himself with broad support among Liberals, Democrats, moderates and Independents.


Unfortunately, the base of the Republican Party -- Conservatives, that is -- have been left cold by his penchant for "reaching across the aisle". McCain correctly notes that the Gold Standard for Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, often "reached across the aisle" to Democrats. This is supposed to allay Conservative fears, I guess. But Conservatives know that this is misrepresenting what Reagan was about.


Sure, Ronald Reagan "reached across the aisle" to the Democrats. However, he did so to bring them over to his point of view. Reagan didn't move his policies to the Left when he "reached across the aisle", he moved the Democrats to the Right. On the other hand, McCain has made a two decade career of siding with the Democrats on issue after issue.

• He explained his vote against the Bush tax cuts with Democratic rhetoric, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".


• He has sided with the Democrats over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, urging the closure of the base and the inclusion of enemy combatants in American civilian courts and prisons, presumably giving them access to the same rights as American criminals. He would also deny our interrogators the tools they need to quickly elicit information from detainees that would prevent further terrorist attacks.


• He has sponsored the most serious breech of the First Amendment in American history, teaming up with Russ Feingold to create campaign finance "reform", which neither gets money out of politics, nor empowers anyone but the Legacy Media and the unions. Does anyone seriously believe that he would ever appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would rule against McCain-Feingold?


• Speaking of judges, McCain led the infamous "Gang of 14", that left the Senate with the ability to block any judges they disliked with a minority of dissenting votes, rather than the majority demanded by the Constitution.


• McCain-Kennedy, meanwhile, made a mockery of the rule of law, failing to secure our borders, while simulaneously creating all sorts of incentives to violate American immigration law. He claims it isn't really amnesty, but it didn't provide for any real enforcement and totally ignored border security.


• And what Conservative in his right mind would suddenly decide that Global Warmism can be averted with Cap & Trade laws that would, incidently, stifle the American economy? And yet, here we have the putative nominee of the GOP cosponsoring the economically devastating McCain-Leiberman Bill.


• McCain is claiming the Pro-Life mantle, while voting for embryonic stem cell research, and opposing a Constitutional amendment to define, once and for all, marriage as a state between a man and a woman. So why vote for Barak or Hillary, when we've got McCain?

Now, today, with the nomination all but sewn up, John McCain speaks before the Conservative Political Action Committee, or C-PAC. Suddenly, he's a Conservative. He tells this august body of Conservative thinkers and activists that he has "a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November." So, where was he for the last 25 years?

He also makes this spectacular claim: "I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles..." Of course, in "reaching across the aisle", one should never let those "most basic of principles" get in the way!

Lest you might confuse him with being blind to his controversial nature, McCain acknowledges his "occasional" lapses from Conservative philosophy: "Surely, I have held ... positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives." Looking back at the above list, one could be excused for exclaiming, "Well, DUH!" Apparently, the Senator from Arizona has been hiding a mastery of understatement.

Of the November elections, he says that, rather than debating small differences between the Parties "We are arguing about hugely consequential things." OK! But where, exactly, besides the surge in Iraq, does McCain really differ from the Democrats?

In summation, McCain says that he is the Conservative candidate because he says he is. Therefore, all us Conservatives need to get over any belief that "...I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative..." and get behind him as the Republican nominee.

This is condescending at best. This is almost as insulting as Dorothy Rabinowitz calling Conservative critics of John McCain and his record "semi psychotic". As far as I'm concerned, the only thing "semi psychotic" is this inane effort to recast Conservatism as John McCain. Such an effort is Orwellian.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has shown what a class act he really is. Yes, he dropped out of the primary race. But he did so for the best of reasons: he wants to see whomever the Democratic nominee is to go down in defeat in November. Hence, although he has garnered enough support around the nation to continue, especially among Conservatives, he would step aside to prevent the sort of internecine bloodletting that would all but hand the White House over to the Democrats.

Of the need for Conservative values, he said "We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future."

And of failure to embrace these Conservative principles? "I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century—still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower."

Truer words have never been spoken! One of France's biggest problems is that it is losing its culture thanks to unrelenting Muslim immigration and an overexpansive welfare state. An Obama or Hillary administration (or McCain, for that matter) will send us ever onward down that slippery slope.

Romney warns us of the perils of electing a Liberal to the White House: "Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead." Don't forget that John McCain belittled Romney's business experience saying "I did it out of patriotism, not for profit", as if there was something unpatriotic about being a businessman.

Friends, put the two speeches, both delivered to C-PAC on the same day, side by side and compare. Clearly, Mitt Romney showed himself to the true Conservative. John McCain tried to obfuscate his record in Congress, while wrapping himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. (A comment posted on a news article about McCain said "I don't want to see what's under that mantle!")

Romney only had to speak of his beliefs, he needed no props. McCain had to trot out all those old photos of him with Reagan.

McCain kept claiming to be the Conservative candidate.

Romney merely spoke about what that Conservative stands for.

The distinction is clear. And the Republican Party didn't get the best man.

Copyright Feb. 7th, 2008

MITT ROMNEY

Well! What can I say about Mitt Romney now that he has lost the Florida primary to John McCain? Until this evening, Romney had a strong lead in the delegate count for the national convention. But with McCain picking up 57 delegates, that puts the pressure on Romney.

Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, who has a track record of taking over failing businesses and turning them around. Like Giuliani and Bill Richardson, he's had executive experience in both the private and the public sector. He was the man who turned the 2002 Summer Olympics in Salt Lake City into a successful venture, although it was on the brink of collapse amid mismanagement and scandal. As governor of Massachusetts, he reversed the state's fiscal decline and created budget surpluses where none had existed before.

If the economy is to be the defining issue of the 2008 presidential race, then Romney is the candidate for the Republicans. His success in business and as governor put him head and shoulders above all the other candidates. On the issues, only Fred Thompson was stronger, although Mitt looks more like a president. Granted, that was superficial, but that is also part of what voters look at.

Romney is the epitome of that old saying, "If at twenty you are not a Liberal, you have no heart -- if at forty you are not a Conservative, you have no brain." Romney's political career has moved him steadily to the Right. In 1994, he was the closest of any Republicans to unseat Ted Kennedy, failing only because he moved to the Left in a misguided effort to "moderate" his tone for Liberal Massachusetts.

As a candidate for governor, he left behind these youthful indiscretions to run as a more mainstream Conservative. True to my observations yesterday, in The McCain Mutiny, Romney won.

Romney's campaign seems to have earned the enmity of the Liberal Legacy Media, despite his past Liberal leanings and his Hollywood-style presidential looks. My suspicion is that he is the one candidate that can actually unite the Republicans and beat either Hillary or Obama. As such, they are shilling for McCain as much as they can, telling us that he is the only candidate worthy of being called a Conservative. As if the Legacy Media has any real idea of what a Conservative is.

In service to this agenda, the Legacy Media has made much of Romney's Mormon faith. There has been a lot of attention given to Mormon history and to alleged mistrust of Mormons by the evangelical Christians who make up such a large part of the Conservative base. Of course, the simple fact that Mormonism is, in essence, a Christian faith gets left out of these examinations.

Questions have arisen about the Mormon practice, abandoned a century ago by mainstream Mormons, of polygamy. But that doesn't wash since, of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney is the only one who is still married to his first --and only -- wife!

Curiously, none of these issues were raised when Harry Reid, the "Dingy One" from Nevada who is currently the Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats, was opining as to how "the war is lost" and calling President Bush "a loser". For some reason, the Legacy Media doesn't see the Mormon faith as problematic for a Democrat.

The religion question became so extreme that Romney had to blunt the attacks. On Dec. 6th, 2007, he gave a speech (you can see it here) about his Mormon faith and his ideals as a presidential candidate. Entitled Faith in America, he answered and shut down all his critics, and did so in a way that enhanced his stature as a man and as a prospective president.

Romney, as noted above, has grown into his Conservative principles. Hence, he is tagged by McCain and the Legacy Media as a "flip-flopper". Well, Paul Compos of the Scripps Howard New Service has already demonstrated that it is McCain, not Romney, who is positionally challenged.

The stands Romney has taken in this campaign are the tried and true Conservative views. He seeks an overturn of Roe v. Wade, turning the issue of abortion back to the states and the people, where it belongs. He has vowed tax cuts and private sector solutions to various social problems, rather than the Nanny State of the Democrats. And he has stood solidly for America in the War on Terror, supporting President Bush and our troops.

Indeed, Romney and Fred Thompson are the only candidates I've heard actually defend American businesses, rightfully praising them for our unprecedented standard of living. All the other candidates, and especially John McCain, have criticized and belittled our corporations, threatening them with ever more onerous taxes and regulations.

So here is what we have with Mitt Romney:

• An impeccable and successful resume of executive experience both in the private and the public spheres.


• A genuinely decent man, without the personal baggage of most of the other candidates.


• A man who has grown into his Conservatism, learning from the past and applying it to the present, while not pandering to the base.


• And a man who, when unjustly maligned for his faith, stood up to the bigots without demeaning either them or himself.

Mitt Romney is my candidate of choice for the Republican nomination. A perfect candidate? No, and never has a perfect candidate ever existed. Yet Romney is the man who most epitomizes the ideals of Conservatism. He has the fewest skeletons of all the other candidates. He has the most experience.

Mitt Romney is the man for the White House, hands down, out of all the candidates that we have examined here in these columns. He has a tough battle ahead of him. But there is the one thing the philosopher got right out all he got wrong: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

Romney is the man!

Copyright Jan. 29th, 2008

RUN, RUN, RUDY!

This is another column that I have to get in before it's too late. Rudolph Giuliani, America's Mayor, and presidential candidate. A tough prosecutor, a miracle-working mayor, successful businessman and a lawman's lawman, there is a lot to like about Rudy.

Leaving the Democratic Party after the 1970's Rudy began his journey to the Right -- some might say he was maturing -- as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, eventually becoming a US attorney.

New York City, in the '70's and '80's, had become increasingly dysfunctional. Crime and police corruption kept getting worse, taxes were increasing at ever higher rates, race riots were a common summer pastime, "the Bronx was burning", businesses and the middle class were leaving in droves. By the late 1980's, New York was considered, by the smart money, at least, ungovernable. One mayor after another had left New York worse or, at best, the same as when they got there.

In 1989, Rudy Giuliani narrowly lost the mayoralty to David Dinkins in a hotly contested race. David Dinkins then went on to turn a dire situation into an abyss. Dinkins presided over one of the worst periods in New York History. Racial tensions hit a new low, riots were allowed to "run their course", drug dealers slain in police shootouts were given City-funded funerals, police were treated worse than the thugs, businesses were left to the tender mercies of protesting mobs, and the taxes just kept getting higher and higher.

Giuliani finally won the election in 1993, despite being branded as a "fascist" by the Left in New York. Almost overnight, Rudy turned the City around. His approach to crime was known as "the broken window theory". If a building has a broken window, and no one fixes it, it is only a matter of time before more of the windows are broken. Same as with crime. If we let the little pathologies go unpunished, bigger pathologies would soon follow.

Rudy began with the infamous New York "squeegee" men, panhandlers who would "wash" your car's windows with questionable water and demand payment. These he summarily banned from the streets. Next were the turnstile jumpers in the subways. Of complete surprise to Liberals all across the nation, these turnstile jumpers were also carrying guns, knives, drugs, and outstanding arrest warrants. Then there were Gotti fireworks shows, the loud radios and public drinking, clearing the parks of drug dealers and users, cracking down on public nuisances, and a total restructuring of the police department. Suddenly, crime dropped. It kept on dropping. In fact it is still dropping, more than a decade after his election.

Racial tensions soon became more a matter of partisan politics than a boiling over of the streets. His crime reductions meant that fewer blacks and minorities were killed by the criminals, and his riding herd on the police reduced the number of people killed by police in the line of duty. Riots suddenly stopped. Folks started to actually walk around their neighborhoods at all hours of the day and night, getting to know their neighbors.

On economics, Rudy cut the the City taxes for the first time in decades. More importantly, he froze or cut the budgets of every department but the police. Unions screamed, the police (who got no pay raises) cried foul, and welfare clients got jobs. For that was something else that Rudy did that was unthinkable: Rudy demanded and got fingerprint identification for all welfare clients. Suddenly, the enrollment in welfare programs dropped to half of what it was.

The defining moment for Rudy Giuliani was the attack on 9/11. Rudy's performance in the days following the attack cemented his reputation as "America's Mayor". His leadership brought us through the worst disaster in history.

Indeed, there is much to admire about Rudy Giuliani. He is a strong leader who can get Conservative things done, even with a Liberal legislature. He is phenomenal on issues of crime. And he has a clear vision of America and her enemies that, frankly, all the Democrats sorely lack.

And yet... you know you smell a "but"!

Yes, I know that Rudy cleaned up Times Square. The "Crossroads of the World" had seen better days by 1993. The great theaters and movie houses had given way to X-rated movies, peepshows, porn shops, prostitution, and drugs. It was rapidly plunging deeper into squalor as each day passed. Times Square today is bright and cheerful. Gone are all but vestiges of the sociopathology that made Times Square a dangerous, at best, place. In its place are fine family- oriented attractions, huge, brilliantly lit displays, and throngs of happy (not wary) visitors.

The downside is how this was all accomplished. Giuliani, first of all, rezoned much of the area, making it difficult for the adult entertainment industry (that doesn't sound right!) to take root. With existing establishments, he used the practice of eminent domain to seize properties, which were then handed over to entities such as Disney and the Hard Rock Cafe. This practice gained notoriety in 2005 with the Kelo decision of the Supreme Court, which narrowly held that property owned by one individual can be confiscated by local government and handed over to another private entity if it would "further the common good" of the community.

My Libertarian streak just spasms when I hear about such practices. Sure, eminent domain is a useful tool. But it should never be used to aquire property from one private entity and give it to another. There lies far too many opportunities for mischief by our government officials.

Social issues, too, are an Achilles' Heel for Rudy Giuliani. Whatever his virtues, he is simply wrong on far too many matters important to most Conservatives. He is extremely Pro-Choice, even advocating government funding for abortions. For all intents and purposes, he turned New York City into a "sanctuary city", ordering City officials to no cooperate with the INS. And he was far too comfortable with the Gay Rights crowd. His social Liberalism, in my mind, would have made his fiscal conservatism rather suspect, since I find it hard to square the one with the other.

To be fair, let's stipulate that Rudy has campaigned on appointing strict originalist judges in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia. After all, the president is far more removed from social issues than governors or mayors. It is the courts, in fact, where the real battles in the Culture Wars are to be fought and won. Originalist judges are the weapon of choice.

Outside of the Tri-state Area, all these negatives would have made Rudy problematic for the Conservative base, although his successes garnered him much praise. And, all his negatives aside, he would still be a far better president than either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton. Still, his name recognition and his fame for "governing the ungovernable City" makes him a much more known quantity than any of his Republican opponents.

Unfortunately, the Giuliani campaign never seemed to connect with the voters. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina -- all have failed to see Rudy garner more than single digits in the polls. Now, as the candidates are starting to drop out, he has put all his chips on Florida.

Florida should have been a good state for Giuliani. It's reasonably Conservative, although his social Liberalism wouldn't raise too many eyebrows. It is very rich in delegates, having a large population. And it is populated by many, many New Yorkers who've moved there to retire. But it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Recent polls show that Rudy is dropping into an ever more distant third place in Florida.

As if that weren't enough, should Giuliani get the Republican nomination, it looks like he would lose New Jersey, of all places. All the smart money would have sworn that New Jersey, being New York City's bedroom, so to speak, would be a lock for Rudy. But then, maybe that money isn't so smart after all.

Slipping and fading, Rudy looks to join the ranks of the also-rans. But he might still pull a rabbit out of his hat. He still might get the nomination, although that is looking increasingly unlikely. Still, the Conservative faithful wonder, how glorious would a death match between Hillary and Rudy be? It would be, for political junkies such as myself, a battle royale! The Mother of All Elections.

I doubt it, but it still might happen. Stranger things than that have happened in presidential politics. Perhaps, in an alternate universe...

Copyright Jan. 24th, 2008

FIRST PRINCIPLES

Hello, All!





In the interests of keeping the point of view of this blog front and center, I would like to take this opportunity to state clearly and for the record exactly what my ideological point of view is. This is not to say that I am closed minded or that I won't entertain other ideas. However, one must have a firm bedrock on which to look at the issues and matters of the day. This then, is my foundation.





The short form is that I am a radical free-market social Conservative with major Libertarian tendencies. I believe that each man or woman is an adult who is quite capable of managing his own affairs and doesn't need constant regulation from a Nanny State. For, instance, when Chuck Schumer said during his debates with Al Damato that he has "a passion to legislate", I was struck by fear -- fear that he would legislate all my Liberties away. His career to date has done little to quell that fear.





My point of view is a belief in a strictly limited government that taxes far more lightly than today, that deregulates all but the most commonly agreed upon crimes, and that strongly defends our People and our Liberties.





To illustrate, please let me list, issue by issue, where I stand and why.

• THE CONSTITUTION: The Constitution is the rule book for how we are to be governed. As such, what is written in the Constitution is sacrosanct. It was written in plain English, not the legalese that our elites think it should be read. And it is not a living document! For example, just try to play a game of Monopoly with the rules for that game a "living document". Being a living document, the rules then become an ever shifting miasma, meaning just what the players want it to mean when they want it. If you think that you could get a good game going in that situation, then, perhaps, you'd like to be governed by a living Constitution. However, I doubt most folks would agree. Sure, I know that the Constitution was written 230 years ago and that times change, but that is why there is a provision to amend the Constitution. This way, it becomes a matter of the Will of the People, rather than the Will of the Courts, or government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the the lawyers. It is very important to have as many judges as possible like Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, who actually read the Constitution, do not look to foreign law, and make their judgements, not on their own policy preferences, but on what the Constitution actually says.
  


• FOREIGN POLICY: Let's face it, Folks! There's only one country in the world that actually cares about everyday people. The United States has done more in the last century to improve the standard of living of every human on the face of this planet than any other nation in history. No other nation has made more people free than the United States. No other nation has done more to raise the standards of living for more people than the United States. And what of our critics? Mostly, they are the nations that owe their owe existence and freedom -- what freedom they have, alas -- to the United States. As such, the United States should have no feelings of guilt, should cower to no other nation or body of nations, and should, in fact, lead the world. This is not because of some divinely granted right, but because it was earned with the blood and treasure of Americans who fought and died for the cause of Liberty. What America needs is a strong, independent and forceful foreign policy that guarantees, not only Americans, but all people life, Liberty, property, and opportunity. As for the United Nations, I suggest that they pay rent to meet in New York, but that the United States should cancel its membership.
  


• NATIONAL DEFENSE: Taking into consideration what I wrote above about the Constitution, it should be obvious that National Defense is one of the few powers actually granted to the federal government. As such, I believe that national defense has become a poor relation regarding the importance that social spending, which is actually forbidden by the Tenth Amendment, has taken on in recent decades. The fact of the matter is, despite the good America has done in the last century, there are plenty of folks who would like to see our downfall. This being the case, America must have the strongest, most robust, and most flexible military in the world. Ours still is, but it is no where near strong enough. On average, the military takes only 20% or so of the federal budget. This is an outrage. Our enemies aren't impressed with Liberal downsizing of our military. During the 1990's, we slashed our military by 50% or more. Al Qaeda looked at that as a sign of weakness and attacked us often and relentlessly. It was Ronald Reagan's buildup of the military that defeated the Soviet Union. It was only when George "Dubya" Bush took the fight into Afghanistan and Iraq that America was given a respite from the almost annual attacks that were allowed in the 1990's. Therefore, whatever the military budget, if it isn't at least 50% of the federal budget, it just ain't enough!
  
• TAXES: The short story is, Americans are taxed way too much. The average American pays more than half of his gross income in taxes, when all is said and done. Even the lowest 50% of wage earners, who pay almost no federal income tax, pay that much in local taxes, state taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes and the taxes that are levied upon the businesses that supply their food and clothing. This is also an outrage. But we have so built into the system a means of confiscating these monies without our really seeing it that the status quo continues anon. If any taxes are to be collected, the proper way would be to have only one low tax rate for all wage earners and all businesses, regardless of income. Furthermore, said taxes should be paid monthly with a check, just like the phone bill or the electric bill. In this way, the People will know, up close and personal, just how much of their money is confiscated and will, I am sure, vote accordingly.
  
• SPENDING: When one considers the Tenth Amendment and then looks at what our government actually spends our money on, it is immediately apparent that more than 80% of our federal budget is unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment reads as follows:
  

  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or
  to the people.
  

  This means that, if it ain't in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it! Now, having read the Constitution, I can find no provision for enforced charity (welfare) for instance. Or for health insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) or retirement planning (Social Security) or any of hundreds of government programs. They simply aren't there. If, for some reason, Americans wanted these things provided for -- I assume they do, since they haven't voted to have them removed -- the Constitution provides for an amendment process. Of course, this brings us back to the idea of a "living document" and I risk repeating myself.
  

This is a short list of my worldview. As subjects and issues come up I will expand on these and other matters. I look forward to reading your responses.

Copyright Nov. 15th, 2006