06/05: Prediction on Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney will not be the Republican presidential nominee for two related reasons.
1. Conservative Christians do not regard Mormons as Christians, instead terming them a "cult."
2. Conservative Christians believe the United States to be a Christian Nation, needing Christian leadership.
Therefore, since Mitt Romney is not Christian, he cannot be allowed to lead a Christian nation.
If, contrary to my prediction Romney does become the Republican nominee and faces off against Hillary, then Conservatives probably would vote for Romney. He may not be Christian, in their thinking, but is not seen as Anti-Christian in the same way Hillary is. (more below)
1. Conservative Christians do not regard Mormons as Christians, instead terming them a "cult."
2. Conservative Christians believe the United States to be a Christian Nation, needing Christian leadership.
Therefore, since Mitt Romney is not Christian, he cannot be allowed to lead a Christian nation.
If, contrary to my prediction Romney does become the Republican nominee and faces off against Hillary, then Conservatives probably would vote for Romney. He may not be Christian, in their thinking, but is not seen as Anti-Christian in the same way Hillary is. (more below)
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Pew Forum offers a good survey of the powerful evangelical figures being courted by Republican presidential candidates. So far almost none of these figures has committed to a particular candidate.
This article affirms what I have said before, support for this election's roster of candidates is shallow, allowing room for an attractive conservative still to enter the race.
This article affirms what I have said before, support for this election's roster of candidates is shallow, allowing room for an attractive conservative still to enter the race.
19/04: Empty Promise
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
When the Democrats were running for Congress they promised a new day of honesty if elected. Right. I missed this article when it came out last month about how an election finance loophole was used by the Dems. Technically legal, but a violation of the spirit of their campaign promises. Never ask a politician--how dumb do you think the voters are?--you won't want to hear the answer.
13/04: The NYT and Voter Fraud
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gateway Pundit does a smack-down of the New York Times on voter fraud. Voter fraud is a problem and it usually benefits Democrats.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Here's something odd. According to the Pew Forum, a recent survey indicated that the preferred candidates of white evangelical Republicans were Guilliani and McCain. Huckabee and Brownback, who would seem more natural favorites, have not gotten much traction with these voters. Nearly a quarter of white evangelical Republicans do not yet have a favorite.
My speculation: White evangelical Republicans want to keep the Democrats out of the White House worse than they want ideological purity in their own candidates, and do not think Brownback and Huckabee have a chance. As I've said before, if Guilliani or McCain can convince evangelicals that they will nominate conservative judges, evangelicals will pull the lever for them in spite of their personal marital history and other positions.
My conclusion: with nearly a quarter of these voters undecided, and the support of the others probably not very deep, there is still an opening for someone like Fred Thompson to gain white evangelical support if he is perceived to be capable of beating Hillary or Obama.
My speculation: White evangelical Republicans want to keep the Democrats out of the White House worse than they want ideological purity in their own candidates, and do not think Brownback and Huckabee have a chance. As I've said before, if Guilliani or McCain can convince evangelicals that they will nominate conservative judges, evangelicals will pull the lever for them in spite of their personal marital history and other positions.
My conclusion: with nearly a quarter of these voters undecided, and the support of the others probably not very deep, there is still an opening for someone like Fred Thompson to gain white evangelical support if he is perceived to be capable of beating Hillary or Obama.
28/03: Courting Catastrophe
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This statement from the WH speaks for itself (slightly abridged) :
"On March 8th, we said that the President would veto any bill that tied a timetable or restrictions to the supplemental. So the Democrats have known for 20 days, nearly three weeks, that their current bill would never become law. Yet they continued down their current path.
"A week ago, they heard from the Secretary of Defense that if the emergency funding isn't provided by April 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their families. Yet they continued down their current path, and they cobbled together votes by adding extraneous spending and domestic spending for such things as the spinach, peanut, and shrimp lobbies."
"[T]he National Intelligence Estimate, released on February 2nd, predicted that withdrawing coalition forces from Iraq within the next 12 to 18 months would not solve Iraq's problems, but would, in fact, lead to catastrophe.
"Democrats in Congress must take responsibility for their votes and their statements, and stop trying to have it both ways. It is completely disingenuous to stand up and highlight the intelligence community's judgment about conditions on the ground in Iraq one month, as Senator Reid did, but then vote for the precise action that the same experts say would make the situation catastrophic the next. It is also disingenuous to praise the Iraq Study Group's report in December, but now support an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
"Secretary Baker, himself, says General Petraeus and our new strategy "ought to be given a chance." And the Iraq Study Group said of withdrawal, "the point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose."
"Have Democrats decided to reject the judgment of our intelligence community, the Baker-Hamilton report, and our military experts? If not, then they need to stop undermining the early progress we are seeing in Iraq, so that they can sound tough without having to take responsibility for their actions."
Today's (3-28) Full White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino here.
"On March 8th, we said that the President would veto any bill that tied a timetable or restrictions to the supplemental. So the Democrats have known for 20 days, nearly three weeks, that their current bill would never become law. Yet they continued down their current path.
"A week ago, they heard from the Secretary of Defense that if the emergency funding isn't provided by April 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so will their families. Yet they continued down their current path, and they cobbled together votes by adding extraneous spending and domestic spending for such things as the spinach, peanut, and shrimp lobbies."
"[T]he National Intelligence Estimate, released on February 2nd, predicted that withdrawing coalition forces from Iraq within the next 12 to 18 months would not solve Iraq's problems, but would, in fact, lead to catastrophe.
"Democrats in Congress must take responsibility for their votes and their statements, and stop trying to have it both ways. It is completely disingenuous to stand up and highlight the intelligence community's judgment about conditions on the ground in Iraq one month, as Senator Reid did, but then vote for the precise action that the same experts say would make the situation catastrophic the next. It is also disingenuous to praise the Iraq Study Group's report in December, but now support an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
"Secretary Baker, himself, says General Petraeus and our new strategy "ought to be given a chance." And the Iraq Study Group said of withdrawal, "the point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose."
"Have Democrats decided to reject the judgment of our intelligence community, the Baker-Hamilton report, and our military experts? If not, then they need to stop undermining the early progress we are seeing in Iraq, so that they can sound tough without having to take responsibility for their actions."
Today's (3-28) Full White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino here.
From Charles Krauthammer today (via RCP):
Alberto Gonzales has to go. I say this with no pleasure -- he's a decent and honorable man -- and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their bloodlust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.
It's not a question of probity, but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.
Read entire piece here.
Not so fast.
I try not to disagree with Charles Krauthammer--but this strikes me as a bit harsh. If Gonzales is a "decent and honorable" man and this is not an issue of integrity, then this embarrassing misstep will seem less devastating over time. I like that the President is standing behind Gonzales. Let him ride it out. Let the administration stand up to Congress. Let the President and his men make their case before the nation. I don't see any long term advantage to cashiering Gonzales at this moment.
On the other hand, as many have noted, Gonzales is the latest ex-next Supreme Court Justice. In actuality, Gonzales fell from the list of viable candidates months ago. However, this imbroglio has probably ensured that the first Latino governor of Texas will not be Alberto Gonzales.
For more coverage on the would-be scandal:
Here for a summary of the facts.
Here for more on the separation of powers aspect within the context of the Constitution and a recipe for a political comeback on the part of the administration.
Alberto Gonzales has to go. I say this with no pleasure -- he's a decent and honorable man -- and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their bloodlust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.
It's not a question of probity, but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.
Read entire piece here.
Not so fast.
I try not to disagree with Charles Krauthammer--but this strikes me as a bit harsh. If Gonzales is a "decent and honorable" man and this is not an issue of integrity, then this embarrassing misstep will seem less devastating over time. I like that the President is standing behind Gonzales. Let him ride it out. Let the administration stand up to Congress. Let the President and his men make their case before the nation. I don't see any long term advantage to cashiering Gonzales at this moment.
On the other hand, as many have noted, Gonzales is the latest ex-next Supreme Court Justice. In actuality, Gonzales fell from the list of viable candidates months ago. However, this imbroglio has probably ensured that the first Latino governor of Texas will not be Alberto Gonzales.
For more coverage on the would-be scandal:
Here for a summary of the facts.
Here for more on the separation of powers aspect within the context of the Constitution and a recipe for a political comeback on the part of the administration.
23/03: House Votes for Timetable
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post :
"The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008" (read the entire article here).
The President promises to veto (condensed):
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops.
"Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.
"The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women [in uniform] standing with me here today."
The President's full statement here.
What does it mean? Speaker Nancy Pelosi won this vote with absolutely no room to spare.
Of course, my guess is that she had a few votes up here sleeve. Surely, they would not have taken the vote to the floor with such a razor-thin margin.
Analysis from Paul Kane of the Washinton Post here on who voted for what and why.
My analysis in brief: The Speaker won the vote--but she is still losing the war to lose the war. She and John Murtha ought not to laugh too loudly, my guess is that the laughing is not done.
Some brief notes: My favorite Democrat, Gene Taylor, voted against the timetable. A Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted, Texas 17 Representative, Chet Edwards, disappointingly, voted for the timetable. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
"The House of Representatives today passed a $124 billion emergency spending bill that sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008" (read the entire article here).
The President promises to veto (condensed):
"The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
"As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops.
"Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.
"The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women [in uniform] standing with me here today."
The President's full statement here.
What does it mean? Speaker Nancy Pelosi won this vote with absolutely no room to spare.
Of course, my guess is that she had a few votes up here sleeve. Surely, they would not have taken the vote to the floor with such a razor-thin margin.
Analysis from Paul Kane of the Washinton Post here on who voted for what and why.
My analysis in brief: The Speaker won the vote--but she is still losing the war to lose the war. She and John Murtha ought not to laugh too loudly, my guess is that the laughing is not done.
Some brief notes: My favorite Democrat, Gene Taylor, voted against the timetable. A Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted, Texas 17 Representative, Chet Edwards, disappointingly, voted for the timetable. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Please consider this excellent Andrew McCarthy follow-up piece from NRO, which, once again, comes highly recommended by Tocqueville. By the way, it is easy to see why Tocqueville is such an admirer of McCarthy.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"From the very start, the Bush administration’s self-induced debacle over fired United States attorneys has blurred law and politics. Now, the blur has officially grown into the fog of inter-branch war.
"The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have threatened to subpoena two of President Bush’s top aides, senior adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers."
What does all this mean?
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. Such threats from Congress are politically tactical but legally dubious. They flout our bedrock separation-of-powers doctrine....
2. The President...offered a compromise. Members of the President’s executive staff would be made available for private interviews.... [Under this proposal] Congress would not be permitted to place the President’s advisers under oath and there would be no stenographic transcript. This offer is in keeping with recent precedent (e.g., 9/11 Commission hearings).
[Congress] would, of course, [maintain the power] to compel sworn testimony and other information from top executive officials at the Justice Department, over which Congress has funding and oversight authority. The administration, however, would not surrender internal communications between members of the President’s own staff.
3. From a legal and policy perspective, the White House position is unassailable. [Constitutionally] Congress is entitled to nothing from the President’s staff.
4. This is common sense. Our political branches, [unlike a citizen testifying under oath in a court of law], are equals. The issuance of a subpoena and/or placing someone under oath connotes subservience, rendering the President subservient to Congress.
5. Similarly, transcript among equals is not a quest for the truth. It’s a set-up. If equals truly want a mutual understanding, they can get that by talking informally.
6. But, alas, none of that matters. As sound as the president’s legal position is, the politics strongly favor congressional Democrats.
7. Dissembling is how the administration bungled into its current straits. Now, its political opponents argue, it wants to compound that by insulating top advisers from sworn testimony and an accurate record of what they say.
8. [As a result of the administration's own self-inflicted wounds], this rhetoric is bound to resonate with the public, [which will naturally] wonder whether the administration has something to hide.
What to do?
1. [The President should] come clean about the politics...and the law will make more sense.
2. [The] investigation is about politics, not legal impropriety. It is about exploiting to the maximum degree the administration’s [political] missteps. Congress is within its rights to do that, but the president could undercut its force by (a) acknowledging that his administration was engaged in an inherently political exercise; (b) either putting out chapter-and-verse to justify the claim that some of those dismissed were subpar performers or, in the alternative, apologizing to those who were maligned and firing anyone who knowingly maligned them; and (c) committing that he has no strategy to use his interim-appointment authority to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to confirm executive branch officers.
In truth, this process is intensely political. Congress is egregiously hypocritical in this pursuit of political advantage.
[However] This controversy won’t go away until the administration concedes that politics is political. Until then, the legal underbrush will obscure the political hypocrisy, and the administration will dig itself ever deeper.
Read the entire article here.
Excerpts (mostly in McCarthy's own words) :
"From the very start, the Bush administration’s self-induced debacle over fired United States attorneys has blurred law and politics. Now, the blur has officially grown into the fog of inter-branch war.
"The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have threatened to subpoena two of President Bush’s top aides, senior adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers."
What does all this mean?
McCarthy's main points in summary:
1. Such threats from Congress are politically tactical but legally dubious. They flout our bedrock separation-of-powers doctrine....
2. The President...offered a compromise. Members of the President’s executive staff would be made available for private interviews.... [Under this proposal] Congress would not be permitted to place the President’s advisers under oath and there would be no stenographic transcript. This offer is in keeping with recent precedent (e.g., 9/11 Commission hearings).
[Congress] would, of course, [maintain the power] to compel sworn testimony and other information from top executive officials at the Justice Department, over which Congress has funding and oversight authority. The administration, however, would not surrender internal communications between members of the President’s own staff.
3. From a legal and policy perspective, the White House position is unassailable. [Constitutionally] Congress is entitled to nothing from the President’s staff.
4. This is common sense. Our political branches, [unlike a citizen testifying under oath in a court of law], are equals. The issuance of a subpoena and/or placing someone under oath connotes subservience, rendering the President subservient to Congress.
5. Similarly, transcript among equals is not a quest for the truth. It’s a set-up. If equals truly want a mutual understanding, they can get that by talking informally.
6. But, alas, none of that matters. As sound as the president’s legal position is, the politics strongly favor congressional Democrats.
7. Dissembling is how the administration bungled into its current straits. Now, its political opponents argue, it wants to compound that by insulating top advisers from sworn testimony and an accurate record of what they say.
8. [As a result of the administration's own self-inflicted wounds], this rhetoric is bound to resonate with the public, [which will naturally] wonder whether the administration has something to hide.
What to do?
1. [The President should] come clean about the politics...and the law will make more sense.
2. [The] investigation is about politics, not legal impropriety. It is about exploiting to the maximum degree the administration’s [political] missteps. Congress is within its rights to do that, but the president could undercut its force by (a) acknowledging that his administration was engaged in an inherently political exercise; (b) either putting out chapter-and-verse to justify the claim that some of those dismissed were subpar performers or, in the alternative, apologizing to those who were maligned and firing anyone who knowingly maligned them; and (c) committing that he has no strategy to use his interim-appointment authority to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to confirm executive branch officers.
In truth, this process is intensely political. Congress is egregiously hypocritical in this pursuit of political advantage.
[However] This controversy won’t go away until the administration concedes that politics is political. Until then, the legal underbrush will obscure the political hypocrisy, and the administration will dig itself ever deeper.
Read the entire article here.
21/03: A Silver Lining?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Washington Times notes today that the six bills passed by the Democratic-controlled House during the celebrated "first 100 hours" of the 110th Congress are still awaiting Senate action or reconciliation and are not close to coming before the President:
"Democrats 0 for 6 in Congress; agenda sidetracked by Iraq war."
Christina Bellantoni's article is something of a taunt. The paper quotes House Minority Leader John A. Boehner: "How many bills have they sent to the president? None? Somewhere around there."
Bellatoni highlights the friction between the House and the Senate, quoting Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (responding to reports of frustration from Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader): "Steny is my friend, and he hasn't spent much time in the Senate. They have expedited procedures on everything."
Bellatoni also notes that the internal struggle over an Iraq policy has slowed down the process: "Senators spent weeks negotiating resolutions on Mr. Bush's troop surge to Iraq, and House actions slowed to a crawl as Democrats offer smaller bills while huddling to come up with an Iraq plan."
Analysis: Every cloud has a silver lining. We should resist the temptation to assail the Democrats loudly and publicly for running a "do-nothing" Congress. In truth, an inactive Congress is a good thing. We would be better off to stay mum and count our blessings.
For true conservatives, Congressional gridlock is the last saving grace of modern government. Thomas Jefferson probably did not say this--but we often attribute it to him: "Government governs best that governs least." Let's keep our fingers crossed that these guys stay focused on grandstanding and investigating. When they are not legislating, the Republic is a safer place.
"Democrats 0 for 6 in Congress; agenda sidetracked by Iraq war."
Christina Bellantoni's article is something of a taunt. The paper quotes House Minority Leader John A. Boehner: "How many bills have they sent to the president? None? Somewhere around there."
Bellatoni highlights the friction between the House and the Senate, quoting Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (responding to reports of frustration from Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader): "Steny is my friend, and he hasn't spent much time in the Senate. They have expedited procedures on everything."
Bellatoni also notes that the internal struggle over an Iraq policy has slowed down the process: "Senators spent weeks negotiating resolutions on Mr. Bush's troop surge to Iraq, and House actions slowed to a crawl as Democrats offer smaller bills while huddling to come up with an Iraq plan."
Analysis: Every cloud has a silver lining. We should resist the temptation to assail the Democrats loudly and publicly for running a "do-nothing" Congress. In truth, an inactive Congress is a good thing. We would be better off to stay mum and count our blessings.
For true conservatives, Congressional gridlock is the last saving grace of modern government. Thomas Jefferson probably did not say this--but we often attribute it to him: "Government governs best that governs least." Let's keep our fingers crossed that these guys stay focused on grandstanding and investigating. When they are not legislating, the Republic is a safer place.
