National Review: The Coming McCain Moment
Taking a second look
By Ramesh PonnuruNational Review
"I got some encouraging news this morning in the USA Today," says Sen. John McCain, holding a copy of the paper with his picture on the front page. "McCain firm on Iraq war," it says above the fold. He flips it over to show the rest of the headline: "despite cost to candidacy." "I can't worry about it," he says. "With something like this, you just can't let it concern you. The issue is too important."
Actually, McCain's campaign is doing better than it seems to be. It is true that the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and specifically of the surge he has long advocated, is dragging his poll numbers down. It is true as well that in many polls he is now behind Rudolph Giuliani.
But Giuliani is a useful opponent for McCain. The good news of the senator's season is that another rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has so far failed to unite the Right behind him. In a McCain-Romney race, Romney would have most conservatives and portions of the party establishment behind him - and might win the nomination.
Giuliani is a different story. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion, sued gunmakers for selling guns, and went to court to keep New York City from giving the names of illegal immigrants to the federal government. Polls show that many Republican voters are unaware of these aspects of the former mayor's record. It is hard to see how he wins the nomination once they learn about them. In a three-way race, some people who prefer Romney to McCain will nonetheless back McCain to head off Giuliani. This year, then, a real threat to McCain has failed to materialize - and a fake one has replaced it.
McCain's apostasies from conservatism, unlike Giuliani's, are well known. The mayor's polls form a ceiling. McCain's could be a floor, if conservatives are willing to reconsider their view of him. If they do, then the current Giuliani moment will be succeeded by a McCain moment. I think conservatives will give him a second look - as they should.
It has become common to complain about the weak Republican field. Actually, it is a strong field. The three leading contenders are smart, competent, serious, articulate, and accomplished. (So is Newt Gingrich, who ranks fourth.) In some of these respects they exceed the incumbent. It just isn't a very orthodox field.
Romney, at least in his 2007 version, is the most conventionally conservative. If elected, he could make a fine president. But he has a big disadvantage as a presidential candidate: He is a Mormon. In December, a FoxNews poll found that 32 percent of voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he were Mormon. Speculation about the effect of Romney's Mormonism on his chances has centered on evangelical Christians' theological differences with him. But evangelicals were only slightly more hostile to Mormon candidates than the population at large. Democrats were much more hostile. So even if Romney's conservative social positions get him through the primaries, his religion is a liability in the general election. (It may be that many secular-minded voters consider Mormonism particularly alien and threatening.)
This is unfair to Romney, and to his coreligionists. But this country has elected a non-Protestant president precisely once in its history. If the Republicans were going into 2008 with a large margin of error, it might be worth finding out how voters would react to a Mormon candidate. But Republicans are not going into this election in a strong position. Nominating a Mormon is too risky.
RUMBLES LEFT AND RIGHT
Most of McCain's conservative detractors concede that he would be a formidable candidate in November 2008. They question his ideological bona fides. But it would be a remarkably narrow definition of conservatism that excluded McCain.
"I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record," says McCain, "because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading." Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
The senator's reputation changed during his exciting, disastrous 2000 presidential campaign. During the previous years, he had become a true believer in campaign-finance reform. His attack on monied special interests, and his bitterness at the Bush campaign's attacks on him, seemed to pull him left across the board: on tax cuts, on the environment, on health care. The effect was to enhance McCain's standing with independent voters and journalists while repelling conservatives. What further soured conservatives was that they were then starting, for the first time, to take a strongly negative view of campaign-finance reform, hardening into the conviction that it was an assault on free speech (and particularly on conservative organizations).
Independent voters and Democrats gave McCain some primary victories, but without Republicans he could not win the nomination. Still, he was America's most popular politician, and for the next few years he continued to play the "maverick" Republican - and to reap the rewards in his press clippings, which annoyed conservatives at least as much.
From 2004 onward, however, McCain has been moving rightward again, emphasizing his support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror. So far, this move appears to have cost him support among independent voters and reporters without buying him many friends on the right. Conservatives still have the impression of him they formed when he was tacking left. Besides, even in the last two years he has taken some stands to which a lot of conservatives object.
The good news for conservatives is that some of McCain's un-conservative positions concern trifling subjects, and some of them have little ongoing relevance. (Some of them are important, though, and I'll get to them later.) After 9/11, McCain shepherded a bill to federalize airport security through the Senate. That's not an issue that's going to come up again. The corporate-accounting scandals gave McCain an opportunity to rail against malefactors of great wealth, which he took. He zinged Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission for its inaction and urged more transparency in executive pay. But he gives no sign of itching to impose more regulations now. He supported a scheme of taxes and regulation to fight smoking. His bill didn't become law, but it is no longer an issue since most of its provisions were adopted by the states.
Even campaign-finance reform isn't the issue it once was. President Bush signed McCain's bill, and the senator says he doesn't want any more legislation. "I think that we need to give this law a chance to work." He doesn't think the Federal Election Commission needs any new powers, although, like most Republicans, he does want it to crack down on "527 groups" that fund political ads.
McCain supported a "patient's bill of rights" that would regulate HMOs. But that bill has gone nowhere, and even if it passed it would not be a large step toward socialized medicine. It was small change compared with the gargantuan Medicare prescription-drug entitlement of 2003. (President Bush, and many conservative congressmen, supported that bill; McCain voted against it.)
McCain wants to make people who buy guns at gun shows pass a background check, ending what he considers a loophole in current law. Gun-rights activists have strong objections to this proposal. But they will have to measure his offense against Giuliani's past, and never-repudiated, advocacy of licensing gun owners.
Some conservatives hold McCain's participation in the "Gang of 14" against him. In 2005, most Senate Republicans, frustrated by unprecedented Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees, wanted to change the rules to prevent such filibusters. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement: The Republicans would leave the rules alone so long as the Democrats used the filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances." There were good arguments for and against the deal, although there were no good arguments for the preening collective self-regard with which the 14 senators announced it. McCain notes that months after his intervention, the Senate confirmed both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He thinks it "would have been almost impossible" to confirm them in the aftermath of a bitter fight over a rules change. "That's why they called it the nuclear option, the Senate was about to blow up." Conservatives might disagree with that assessment, while still regarding it as the type of prudential calculation on which allies can disagree.
In 2005 and 2006, McCain differed with the Bush administration about how to interrogate suspected terrorists. The senator, having survived torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese, understandably wanted tough anti-torture language put into law. The administration worried that such language, particularly if susceptible to creative interpretation, might make it impossible to conduct coercive interrogations even if they fell short of torture. In the end, Republicans reached a deal that preserved tough interrogations while addressing McCain's concerns.
That leaves three substantial issues between McCain and conservatives. The first is global warming. McCain has been a believer throughout the Bush years. Most conservatives have associated the fight against global warming with environmental zealotry and overregulation. But McCain has tried to come up with a free-market solution, and he is now emphasizing nuclear power as a way to fuel this country without emitting greenhouse gases. "I don't often like to imitate the French," he says, but France is right to use nuclear power. His proposal, with Joe Lieberman, may not get the balance exactly correct, but right now it looks as though McCain was more prescient than most conservatives.
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush's tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, "No. None. None." It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word - and he is a man who takes honor seriously - he won't raise taxes.
Finally, there is immigration. McCain sees eye to eye with Bush on this issue. He thinks a guest-worker program would reduce illegal immigration, and that we should give illegal immigrants already here a path to citizenship since we aren't going to deport them all. A lot of conservatives want tougher border security, period. Nothing McCain can do now will please some of his critics. But if his bill passes this year, he may try to move on. Or he could try to mollify his reasonable critics by supporting an amendment. Last year, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed that the bill's border-enforcement provisions go into effect first, and be shown to work, before illegal immigrants could start on their path to citizenship. McCain is open to the concept.
A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn't ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that's not true. The reason that social conservatives haven't achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren't trying to betray conservatives; they didn't know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don't just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He's right. Conservatives' reception of McCain shouldn't be colored by historical mythology.
For some conservatives, these discrete issues matter less than what they say about McCain's instincts. His friendly relations with journalists - one of his campaign aides was only half-joking in 2000 when he called the media McCain's "base" - often make conservatives suspicious. But McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War, and his advocacy of the surge, belie the claim that he will do anything for good press.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has long clashed with McCain, says that the senator is worse than a flip-flopper: By voting right, tacking left, and then tacking right, he has shown himself to be devoid of principle. But as the foregoing review of his record suggests, most of McCain's zigzags have been matters of tone and emphasis, not changes of position. He hasn't switched his views as much as Romney or even Giuliani.
There are genuinely disconcerting elements to McCain's politics. He talks about cutting spending, but he rarely connects limited government to individual freedom. He is an inveterate moralist, which eludes many observers because he is concerned about honor rather than virtue. In many of the cases discussed earlier, his moralism slid very quickly into support for regulation: of campaign contributions, of tobacco, even of boxing. At times, his rhetoric about the need for individuals to subsume themselves in the life of the nation verges uncomfortably close to idolatry of the state.
But McCain's merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: "Since Phil Gramm left, there's no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am." (McCain supported Gramm's presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That's why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani's faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration's basic strategy - and that's the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all - then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn't just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy - although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look.
March 9, 2007
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Coming McCain Moment
National Review: The Coming McCain Moment
Taking a second look
By Ramesh PonnuruNational Review
"I got some encouraging news this morning in the USA Today," says Sen. John McCain, holding a copy of the paper with his picture on the front page. "McCain firm on Iraq war," it says above the fold. He flips it over to show the rest of the headline: "despite cost to candidacy." "I can't worry about it," he says. "With something like this, you just can't let it concern you. The issue is too important."
Actually, McCain's campaign is doing better than it seems to be. It is true that the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and specifically of the surge he has long advocated, is dragging his poll numbers down. It is true as well that in many polls he is now behind Rudolph Giuliani.
But Giuliani is a useful opponent for McCain. The good news of the senator's season is that another rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has so far failed to unite the Right behind him. In a McCain-Romney race, Romney would have most conservatives and portions of the party establishment behind him - and might win the nomination.
Giuliani is a different story. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion, sued gunmakers for selling guns, and went to court to keep New York City from giving the names of illegal immigrants to the federal government. Polls show that many Republican voters are unaware of these aspects of the former mayor's record. It is hard to see how he wins the nomination once they learn about them. In a three-way race, some people who prefer Romney to McCain will nonetheless back McCain to head off Giuliani. This year, then, a real threat to McCain has failed to materialize - and a fake one has replaced it.
McCain's apostasies from conservatism, unlike Giuliani's, are well known. The mayor's polls form a ceiling. McCain's could be a floor, if conservatives are willing to reconsider their view of him. If they do, then the current Giuliani moment will be succeeded by a McCain moment. I think conservatives will give him a second look - as they should.
It has become common to complain about the weak Republican field. Actually, it is a strong field. The three leading contenders are smart, competent, serious, articulate, and accomplished. (So is Newt Gingrich, who ranks fourth.) In some of these respects they exceed the incumbent. It just isn't a very orthodox field.
Romney, at least in his 2007 version, is the most conventionally conservative. If elected, he could make a fine president. But he has a big disadvantage as a presidential candidate: He is a Mormon. In December, a FoxNews poll found that 32 percent of voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he were Mormon. Speculation about the effect of Romney's Mormonism on his chances has centered on evangelical Christians' theological differences with him. But evangelicals were only slightly more hostile to Mormon candidates than the population at large. Democrats were much more hostile. So even if Romney's conservative social positions get him through the primaries, his religion is a liability in the general election. (It may be that many secular-minded voters consider Mormonism particularly alien and threatening.)
This is unfair to Romney, and to his coreligionists. But this country has elected a non-Protestant president precisely once in its history. If the Republicans were going into 2008 with a large margin of error, it might be worth finding out how voters would react to a Mormon candidate. But Republicans are not going into this election in a strong position. Nominating a Mormon is too risky.
RUMBLES LEFT AND RIGHT
Most of McCain's conservative detractors concede that he would be a formidable candidate in November 2008. They question his ideological bona fides. But it would be a remarkably narrow definition of conservatism that excluded McCain.
"I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record," says McCain, "because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading." Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
The senator's reputation changed during his exciting, disastrous 2000 presidential campaign. During the previous years, he had become a true believer in campaign-finance reform. His attack on monied special interests, and his bitterness at the Bush campaign's attacks on him, seemed to pull him left across the board: on tax cuts, on the environment, on health care. The effect was to enhance McCain's standing with independent voters and journalists while repelling conservatives. What further soured conservatives was that they were then starting, for the first time, to take a strongly negative view of campaign-finance reform, hardening into the conviction that it was an assault on free speech (and particularly on conservative organizations).
Independent voters and Democrats gave McCain some primary victories, but without Republicans he could not win the nomination. Still, he was America's most popular politician, and for the next few years he continued to play the "maverick" Republican - and to reap the rewards in his press clippings, which annoyed conservatives at least as much.
From 2004 onward, however, McCain has been moving rightward again, emphasizing his support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror. So far, this move appears to have cost him support among independent voters and reporters without buying him many friends on the right. Conservatives still have the impression of him they formed when he was tacking left. Besides, even in the last two years he has taken some stands to which a lot of conservatives object.
The good news for conservatives is that some of McCain's un-conservative positions concern trifling subjects, and some of them have little ongoing relevance. (Some of them are important, though, and I'll get to them later.) After 9/11, McCain shepherded a bill to federalize airport security through the Senate. That's not an issue that's going to come up again. The corporate-accounting scandals gave McCain an opportunity to rail against malefactors of great wealth, which he took. He zinged Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission for its inaction and urged more transparency in executive pay. But he gives no sign of itching to impose more regulations now. He supported a scheme of taxes and regulation to fight smoking. His bill didn't become law, but it is no longer an issue since most of its provisions were adopted by the states.
Even campaign-finance reform isn't the issue it once was. President Bush signed McCain's bill, and the senator says he doesn't want any more legislation. "I think that we need to give this law a chance to work." He doesn't think the Federal Election Commission needs any new powers, although, like most Republicans, he does want it to crack down on "527 groups" that fund political ads.
McCain supported a "patient's bill of rights" that would regulate HMOs. But that bill has gone nowhere, and even if it passed it would not be a large step toward socialized medicine. It was small change compared with the gargantuan Medicare prescription-drug entitlement of 2003. (President Bush, and many conservative congressmen, supported that bill; McCain voted against it.)
McCain wants to make people who buy guns at gun shows pass a background check, ending what he considers a loophole in current law. Gun-rights activists have strong objections to this proposal. But they will have to measure his offense against Giuliani's past, and never-repudiated, advocacy of licensing gun owners.
Some conservatives hold McCain's participation in the "Gang of 14" against him. In 2005, most Senate Republicans, frustrated by unprecedented Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees, wanted to change the rules to prevent such filibusters. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement: The Republicans would leave the rules alone so long as the Democrats used the filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances." There were good arguments for and against the deal, although there were no good arguments for the preening collective self-regard with which the 14 senators announced it. McCain notes that months after his intervention, the Senate confirmed both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He thinks it "would have been almost impossible" to confirm them in the aftermath of a bitter fight over a rules change. "That's why they called it the nuclear option, the Senate was about to blow up." Conservatives might disagree with that assessment, while still regarding it as the type of prudential calculation on which allies can disagree.
In 2005 and 2006, McCain differed with the Bush administration about how to interrogate suspected terrorists. The senator, having survived torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese, understandably wanted tough anti-torture language put into law. The administration worried that such language, particularly if susceptible to creative interpretation, might make it impossible to conduct coercive interrogations even if they fell short of torture. In the end, Republicans reached a deal that preserved tough interrogations while addressing McCain's concerns.
That leaves three substantial issues between McCain and conservatives. The first is global warming. McCain has been a believer throughout the Bush years. Most conservatives have associated the fight against global warming with environmental zealotry and overregulation. But McCain has tried to come up with a free-market solution, and he is now emphasizing nuclear power as a way to fuel this country without emitting greenhouse gases. "I don't often like to imitate the French," he says, but France is right to use nuclear power. His proposal, with Joe Lieberman, may not get the balance exactly correct, but right now it looks as though McCain was more prescient than most conservatives.
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush's tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, "No. None. None." It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word - and he is a man who takes honor seriously - he won't raise taxes.
Finally, there is immigration. McCain sees eye to eye with Bush on this issue. He thinks a guest-worker program would reduce illegal immigration, and that we should give illegal immigrants already here a path to citizenship since we aren't going to deport them all. A lot of conservatives want tougher border security, period. Nothing McCain can do now will please some of his critics. But if his bill passes this year, he may try to move on. Or he could try to mollify his reasonable critics by supporting an amendment. Last year, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed that the bill's border-enforcement provisions go into effect first, and be shown to work, before illegal immigrants could start on their path to citizenship. McCain is open to the concept.
A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn't ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that's not true. The reason that social conservatives haven't achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren't trying to betray conservatives; they didn't know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don't just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He's right. Conservatives' reception of McCain shouldn't be colored by historical mythology.
For some conservatives, these discrete issues matter less than what they say about McCain's instincts. His friendly relations with journalists - one of his campaign aides was only half-joking in 2000 when he called the media McCain's "base" - often make conservatives suspicious. But McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War, and his advocacy of the surge, belie the claim that he will do anything for good press.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has long clashed with McCain, says that the senator is worse than a flip-flopper: By voting right, tacking left, and then tacking right, he has shown himself to be devoid of principle. But as the foregoing review of his record suggests, most of McCain's zigzags have been matters of tone and emphasis, not changes of position. He hasn't switched his views as much as Romney or even Giuliani.
There are genuinely disconcerting elements to McCain's politics. He talks about cutting spending, but he rarely connects limited government to individual freedom. He is an inveterate moralist, which eludes many observers because he is concerned about honor rather than virtue. In many of the cases discussed earlier, his moralism slid very quickly into support for regulation: of campaign contributions, of tobacco, even of boxing. At times, his rhetoric about the need for individuals to subsume themselves in the life of the nation verges uncomfortably close to idolatry of the state.
But McCain's merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: "Since Phil Gramm left, there's no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am." (McCain supported Gramm's presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That's why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani's faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration's basic strategy - and that's the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all - then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn't just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy - although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look.
March 9, 2007
Taking a second look
By Ramesh PonnuruNational Review
"I got some encouraging news this morning in the USA Today," says Sen. John McCain, holding a copy of the paper with his picture on the front page. "McCain firm on Iraq war," it says above the fold. He flips it over to show the rest of the headline: "despite cost to candidacy." "I can't worry about it," he says. "With something like this, you just can't let it concern you. The issue is too important."
Actually, McCain's campaign is doing better than it seems to be. It is true that the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and specifically of the surge he has long advocated, is dragging his poll numbers down. It is true as well that in many polls he is now behind Rudolph Giuliani.
But Giuliani is a useful opponent for McCain. The good news of the senator's season is that another rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has so far failed to unite the Right behind him. In a McCain-Romney race, Romney would have most conservatives and portions of the party establishment behind him - and might win the nomination.
Giuliani is a different story. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion, sued gunmakers for selling guns, and went to court to keep New York City from giving the names of illegal immigrants to the federal government. Polls show that many Republican voters are unaware of these aspects of the former mayor's record. It is hard to see how he wins the nomination once they learn about them. In a three-way race, some people who prefer Romney to McCain will nonetheless back McCain to head off Giuliani. This year, then, a real threat to McCain has failed to materialize - and a fake one has replaced it.
McCain's apostasies from conservatism, unlike Giuliani's, are well known. The mayor's polls form a ceiling. McCain's could be a floor, if conservatives are willing to reconsider their view of him. If they do, then the current Giuliani moment will be succeeded by a McCain moment. I think conservatives will give him a second look - as they should.
It has become common to complain about the weak Republican field. Actually, it is a strong field. The three leading contenders are smart, competent, serious, articulate, and accomplished. (So is Newt Gingrich, who ranks fourth.) In some of these respects they exceed the incumbent. It just isn't a very orthodox field.
Romney, at least in his 2007 version, is the most conventionally conservative. If elected, he could make a fine president. But he has a big disadvantage as a presidential candidate: He is a Mormon. In December, a FoxNews poll found that 32 percent of voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he were Mormon. Speculation about the effect of Romney's Mormonism on his chances has centered on evangelical Christians' theological differences with him. But evangelicals were only slightly more hostile to Mormon candidates than the population at large. Democrats were much more hostile. So even if Romney's conservative social positions get him through the primaries, his religion is a liability in the general election. (It may be that many secular-minded voters consider Mormonism particularly alien and threatening.)
This is unfair to Romney, and to his coreligionists. But this country has elected a non-Protestant president precisely once in its history. If the Republicans were going into 2008 with a large margin of error, it might be worth finding out how voters would react to a Mormon candidate. But Republicans are not going into this election in a strong position. Nominating a Mormon is too risky.
RUMBLES LEFT AND RIGHT
Most of McCain's conservative detractors concede that he would be a formidable candidate in November 2008. They question his ideological bona fides. But it would be a remarkably narrow definition of conservatism that excluded McCain.
"I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record," says McCain, "because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading." Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
The senator's reputation changed during his exciting, disastrous 2000 presidential campaign. During the previous years, he had become a true believer in campaign-finance reform. His attack on monied special interests, and his bitterness at the Bush campaign's attacks on him, seemed to pull him left across the board: on tax cuts, on the environment, on health care. The effect was to enhance McCain's standing with independent voters and journalists while repelling conservatives. What further soured conservatives was that they were then starting, for the first time, to take a strongly negative view of campaign-finance reform, hardening into the conviction that it was an assault on free speech (and particularly on conservative organizations).
Independent voters and Democrats gave McCain some primary victories, but without Republicans he could not win the nomination. Still, he was America's most popular politician, and for the next few years he continued to play the "maverick" Republican - and to reap the rewards in his press clippings, which annoyed conservatives at least as much.
From 2004 onward, however, McCain has been moving rightward again, emphasizing his support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror. So far, this move appears to have cost him support among independent voters and reporters without buying him many friends on the right. Conservatives still have the impression of him they formed when he was tacking left. Besides, even in the last two years he has taken some stands to which a lot of conservatives object.
The good news for conservatives is that some of McCain's un-conservative positions concern trifling subjects, and some of them have little ongoing relevance. (Some of them are important, though, and I'll get to them later.) After 9/11, McCain shepherded a bill to federalize airport security through the Senate. That's not an issue that's going to come up again. The corporate-accounting scandals gave McCain an opportunity to rail against malefactors of great wealth, which he took. He zinged Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission for its inaction and urged more transparency in executive pay. But he gives no sign of itching to impose more regulations now. He supported a scheme of taxes and regulation to fight smoking. His bill didn't become law, but it is no longer an issue since most of its provisions were adopted by the states.
Even campaign-finance reform isn't the issue it once was. President Bush signed McCain's bill, and the senator says he doesn't want any more legislation. "I think that we need to give this law a chance to work." He doesn't think the Federal Election Commission needs any new powers, although, like most Republicans, he does want it to crack down on "527 groups" that fund political ads.
McCain supported a "patient's bill of rights" that would regulate HMOs. But that bill has gone nowhere, and even if it passed it would not be a large step toward socialized medicine. It was small change compared with the gargantuan Medicare prescription-drug entitlement of 2003. (President Bush, and many conservative congressmen, supported that bill; McCain voted against it.)
McCain wants to make people who buy guns at gun shows pass a background check, ending what he considers a loophole in current law. Gun-rights activists have strong objections to this proposal. But they will have to measure his offense against Giuliani's past, and never-repudiated, advocacy of licensing gun owners.
Some conservatives hold McCain's participation in the "Gang of 14" against him. In 2005, most Senate Republicans, frustrated by unprecedented Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees, wanted to change the rules to prevent such filibusters. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement: The Republicans would leave the rules alone so long as the Democrats used the filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances." There were good arguments for and against the deal, although there were no good arguments for the preening collective self-regard with which the 14 senators announced it. McCain notes that months after his intervention, the Senate confirmed both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He thinks it "would have been almost impossible" to confirm them in the aftermath of a bitter fight over a rules change. "That's why they called it the nuclear option, the Senate was about to blow up." Conservatives might disagree with that assessment, while still regarding it as the type of prudential calculation on which allies can disagree.
In 2005 and 2006, McCain differed with the Bush administration about how to interrogate suspected terrorists. The senator, having survived torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese, understandably wanted tough anti-torture language put into law. The administration worried that such language, particularly if susceptible to creative interpretation, might make it impossible to conduct coercive interrogations even if they fell short of torture. In the end, Republicans reached a deal that preserved tough interrogations while addressing McCain's concerns.
That leaves three substantial issues between McCain and conservatives. The first is global warming. McCain has been a believer throughout the Bush years. Most conservatives have associated the fight against global warming with environmental zealotry and overregulation. But McCain has tried to come up with a free-market solution, and he is now emphasizing nuclear power as a way to fuel this country without emitting greenhouse gases. "I don't often like to imitate the French," he says, but France is right to use nuclear power. His proposal, with Joe Lieberman, may not get the balance exactly correct, but right now it looks as though McCain was more prescient than most conservatives.
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush's tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, "No. None. None." It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word - and he is a man who takes honor seriously - he won't raise taxes.
Finally, there is immigration. McCain sees eye to eye with Bush on this issue. He thinks a guest-worker program would reduce illegal immigration, and that we should give illegal immigrants already here a path to citizenship since we aren't going to deport them all. A lot of conservatives want tougher border security, period. Nothing McCain can do now will please some of his critics. But if his bill passes this year, he may try to move on. Or he could try to mollify his reasonable critics by supporting an amendment. Last year, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed that the bill's border-enforcement provisions go into effect first, and be shown to work, before illegal immigrants could start on their path to citizenship. McCain is open to the concept.
A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn't ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that's not true. The reason that social conservatives haven't achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren't trying to betray conservatives; they didn't know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don't just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He's right. Conservatives' reception of McCain shouldn't be colored by historical mythology.
For some conservatives, these discrete issues matter less than what they say about McCain's instincts. His friendly relations with journalists - one of his campaign aides was only half-joking in 2000 when he called the media McCain's "base" - often make conservatives suspicious. But McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War, and his advocacy of the surge, belie the claim that he will do anything for good press.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has long clashed with McCain, says that the senator is worse than a flip-flopper: By voting right, tacking left, and then tacking right, he has shown himself to be devoid of principle. But as the foregoing review of his record suggests, most of McCain's zigzags have been matters of tone and emphasis, not changes of position. He hasn't switched his views as much as Romney or even Giuliani.
There are genuinely disconcerting elements to McCain's politics. He talks about cutting spending, but he rarely connects limited government to individual freedom. He is an inveterate moralist, which eludes many observers because he is concerned about honor rather than virtue. In many of the cases discussed earlier, his moralism slid very quickly into support for regulation: of campaign contributions, of tobacco, even of boxing. At times, his rhetoric about the need for individuals to subsume themselves in the life of the nation verges uncomfortably close to idolatry of the state.
But McCain's merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: "Since Phil Gramm left, there's no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am." (McCain supported Gramm's presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That's why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani's faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration's basic strategy - and that's the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all - then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn't just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy - although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look.
March 9, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Issue of Immigration
John McCain: On immigration, Washington is failing the American people
By SEN. JOHN MCCAIN Tuesday, Mar. 6, 2007
AMONG THE federal government's most important obligations is to secure America's borders and enforce sensible immigration laws that will keep our nation strong and safe. For far too long, Washington has failed miserably in this vital responsibility. An estimated 12 million people live in the United States illegally -- a problem affecting every state in the union.
Coming from a border state, I have seen firsthand the effect that illegal immigration has on our communities and public services, the rampant exploitation of those who traffic in illegal aliens, and the tragic loss of life that so often attends this enduring problem. As a country devoted to the rule of law, fairness and opportunity, the status quo is simply unacceptable. We know that most illegal aliens are drawn to the United States in the hope of finding a better life for themselves and their families. Many of our own ancestors came for the very same reason. But we also know that others come to do America harm and will exploit any weakness or loophole to achieve their malignant objectives.
The truth is that our nation's porous borders and failed immigration policies are a national disgrace, adversely affecting both our economic prospects and national security. A comprehensive immigration control plan that works is long overdue.
To achieve our objectives, America needs the strong reform I've proposed that will:
Vastly improve our border surveillance and enforcement capabilities;
Increase the manpower, infrastructure and capabilities necessary to block, apprehend, detain and return those who try to enter the country illegally; Strengthen the laws and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens and violate immigration law; Achieve and maintain the integrity of official documents to stop fraud, verify immigration status and employment, and enforce immigration law; Encourage immigrants to come out of the shadows so we know who is in this country and develop a sensible guest worker program that will serve the nation's best economic and security interests.
We must devote the resources necessary to do the job right, and our efforts must be sustained. Imagine what we could achieve if we spent less money on pork barrel schemes such as "bridges to nowhere" and more on enforcing our immigration laws and other homeland security imperatives.
The need to bring illegal immigrants out of hiding and end the defacto amnesty that is the status quo is more important than ever in this post-9/11 era of terrorist threat. But this effort must never entail giving away citizenship to those who have broken our laws. Rather it should require those who voluntarily come forward to undertake the hard work of reparation and assimilation that we expect.
Legitimate status must be earned by paying stiff fines and back taxes, undergoing criminal and security checks, passing English and civics tests, remaining employed for six years before going to the back of the line to achieve legal permanent residence status, and adhering to other strict requirements.
Such a program is necessary if we are to protect our country from terrorism and crime by enabling the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement to focus their resources more effectively where they are most needed, and that is on those who choose to remain hidden because they mean to do us harm.
Above all we must be honest and realistic if we are to achieve both the economic and national security we desire. The straight talk of the matter is that as long as there are jobs in the United States that would otherwise go unfilled, illegal immigrants will come, and the economy will eagerly absorb them, no matter what the obstacles. We are willfully abetting a system that is broken and invites the violation of our immigration laws, the manipulation of vulnerable populations and a degradation of national security.
Rather than tolerating the continued chaos promised by business as usual, we need an orderly system that matches jobs that would otherwise go wanting with a well managed guest worker program that ensures we know exactly who our guests are, why they are here, and for how long. Border security and immigration reform must go hand- in -hand. History has shown us that one will simply never succeed without the other.
I truly believe that Americans want and demand that our leaders work together to solve pressing problems rather than persist in empty rhetoric and petty political gamesmanship. By staying true to our principles, exercising common sense and American resolve, we are up to the job of controlling our borders, keeping our economy on the rise, and making the nation safe in an exceedingly dangerous world.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.
By SEN. JOHN MCCAIN Tuesday, Mar. 6, 2007
AMONG THE federal government's most important obligations is to secure America's borders and enforce sensible immigration laws that will keep our nation strong and safe. For far too long, Washington has failed miserably in this vital responsibility. An estimated 12 million people live in the United States illegally -- a problem affecting every state in the union.
Coming from a border state, I have seen firsthand the effect that illegal immigration has on our communities and public services, the rampant exploitation of those who traffic in illegal aliens, and the tragic loss of life that so often attends this enduring problem. As a country devoted to the rule of law, fairness and opportunity, the status quo is simply unacceptable. We know that most illegal aliens are drawn to the United States in the hope of finding a better life for themselves and their families. Many of our own ancestors came for the very same reason. But we also know that others come to do America harm and will exploit any weakness or loophole to achieve their malignant objectives.
The truth is that our nation's porous borders and failed immigration policies are a national disgrace, adversely affecting both our economic prospects and national security. A comprehensive immigration control plan that works is long overdue.
To achieve our objectives, America needs the strong reform I've proposed that will:
Vastly improve our border surveillance and enforcement capabilities;
Increase the manpower, infrastructure and capabilities necessary to block, apprehend, detain and return those who try to enter the country illegally; Strengthen the laws and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens and violate immigration law; Achieve and maintain the integrity of official documents to stop fraud, verify immigration status and employment, and enforce immigration law; Encourage immigrants to come out of the shadows so we know who is in this country and develop a sensible guest worker program that will serve the nation's best economic and security interests.
We must devote the resources necessary to do the job right, and our efforts must be sustained. Imagine what we could achieve if we spent less money on pork barrel schemes such as "bridges to nowhere" and more on enforcing our immigration laws and other homeland security imperatives.
The need to bring illegal immigrants out of hiding and end the defacto amnesty that is the status quo is more important than ever in this post-9/11 era of terrorist threat. But this effort must never entail giving away citizenship to those who have broken our laws. Rather it should require those who voluntarily come forward to undertake the hard work of reparation and assimilation that we expect.
Legitimate status must be earned by paying stiff fines and back taxes, undergoing criminal and security checks, passing English and civics tests, remaining employed for six years before going to the back of the line to achieve legal permanent residence status, and adhering to other strict requirements.
Such a program is necessary if we are to protect our country from terrorism and crime by enabling the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement to focus their resources more effectively where they are most needed, and that is on those who choose to remain hidden because they mean to do us harm.
Above all we must be honest and realistic if we are to achieve both the economic and national security we desire. The straight talk of the matter is that as long as there are jobs in the United States that would otherwise go unfilled, illegal immigrants will come, and the economy will eagerly absorb them, no matter what the obstacles. We are willfully abetting a system that is broken and invites the violation of our immigration laws, the manipulation of vulnerable populations and a degradation of national security.
Rather than tolerating the continued chaos promised by business as usual, we need an orderly system that matches jobs that would otherwise go wanting with a well managed guest worker program that ensures we know exactly who our guests are, why they are here, and for how long. Border security and immigration reform must go hand- in -hand. History has shown us that one will simply never succeed without the other.
I truly believe that Americans want and demand that our leaders work together to solve pressing problems rather than persist in empty rhetoric and petty political gamesmanship. By staying true to our principles, exercising common sense and American resolve, we are up to the job of controlling our borders, keeping our economy on the rise, and making the nation safe in an exceedingly dangerous world.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Right on McCain: John McCain's Conservative Record is Excellent
By Senator Jon Kyl (from National Review Online)
I have had the distinct pleasure of serving with Senator John McCain for the last 12 years in the U.S. Senate. Yet just as important to me as our shared years of service is our common respect for the conservative principles that have guided us in representing our state. That is why the characterization of John McCain as something other than a common-sense conservative is disturbing to me. Senator McCain’s detractors overlook his actual voting record of supporting conservative values.
During my time in the Senate with John McCain, we have cast the same vote nearly nine times out of ten. Whether in our efforts against inefficiency and waste in the federal budget, confronting the threat we face from international terrorism, protecting the sanctity of human life, or some other issue, Senator McCain has been loyal to, and a leader for, conservative beliefs. Senator McCain is well known for his long history of protecting the interests of the American taxpayer. He is without question the best choice for voters opposed to wasteful Washington spending and bloated budgets. Last year, Senator McCain introduced the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, a bill focused on transparency and fiscal restraint. In 2005, Senator McCain and I were two of the four senators to vote against the pork-laden highway bill. During the 109th Congress, Citizens Against Government Waste gave McCain a 91 percent rating, and Pork Busters, a collaboration of fiscal-watchdog groups, labeled him as an “Anti-Pork Hero” in 2006. Conservatives should be outraged about the wasteful spending in Washington, and they should be exacting in their demand for a culture of fiscal restraint. John McCain meets this demand.On the ever-important issue of life, Senator McCain has a record of voting for pro-life legislation: He has voted for bans on partial birth abortion; he has supported the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” and parental notification for minors; and he has voted against using federal money to distribute morning-after contraception in schools. He has repeatedly co-sponsored the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits the transportation of minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws, requiring instead the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. What do pro-abortion groups think of Senator McCain? NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood have both given him zero percent, no-confidence ratings because he has stood up against them for decades. John McCain’s opposition to abortion has been consistent.
Senator McCain also strongly believes in the institution of marriage. He voted for and supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and same-sex partner benefits. Senator McCain endorsed and campaigned for an initiative to amend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as between one man and woman. The defining issue for any candidate who seeks the presidency next year will be that person’s vision for conducting the war against terrorists and our mission in Iraq; there is no one stronger on this issue, or with more credibility, than John McCain.
His support for a safe and secure Middle East is well documented. And Senator McCain’s belief in the relationship between our eventual success in that region and our safety at home is one that I share.Most conservatives believe in aggressive pursuit of terrorists and jihadists. But John McCain has been willing to put his political career on the line for the sake of his belief that these terrorists must be defeated. As the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain has long been an outspoken critic of the management of the war, and there is plenty to criticize on that score. But Senator McCain has also been stronger than all others in his belief in the absolute importance of victory and in his own principled dedication to seeking peace and security over the political expediency of defeatism. Conservatives who believe deeply in the responsibility to defend our country know that no leadership trait is more vital to our next president. More than any other reason, this is why conservatives should support John McCain. In matters of national security, he instinctively understands threats to the United States, and he knows what needs to be done about them.
Even in the face of political adversity, he is unwavering in his commitment to America’s security.
— Jon Kyl is a Republican senator from Arizona.
I have had the distinct pleasure of serving with Senator John McCain for the last 12 years in the U.S. Senate. Yet just as important to me as our shared years of service is our common respect for the conservative principles that have guided us in representing our state. That is why the characterization of John McCain as something other than a common-sense conservative is disturbing to me. Senator McCain’s detractors overlook his actual voting record of supporting conservative values.
During my time in the Senate with John McCain, we have cast the same vote nearly nine times out of ten. Whether in our efforts against inefficiency and waste in the federal budget, confronting the threat we face from international terrorism, protecting the sanctity of human life, or some other issue, Senator McCain has been loyal to, and a leader for, conservative beliefs. Senator McCain is well known for his long history of protecting the interests of the American taxpayer. He is without question the best choice for voters opposed to wasteful Washington spending and bloated budgets. Last year, Senator McCain introduced the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, a bill focused on transparency and fiscal restraint. In 2005, Senator McCain and I were two of the four senators to vote against the pork-laden highway bill. During the 109th Congress, Citizens Against Government Waste gave McCain a 91 percent rating, and Pork Busters, a collaboration of fiscal-watchdog groups, labeled him as an “Anti-Pork Hero” in 2006. Conservatives should be outraged about the wasteful spending in Washington, and they should be exacting in their demand for a culture of fiscal restraint. John McCain meets this demand.On the ever-important issue of life, Senator McCain has a record of voting for pro-life legislation: He has voted for bans on partial birth abortion; he has supported the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” and parental notification for minors; and he has voted against using federal money to distribute morning-after contraception in schools. He has repeatedly co-sponsored the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits the transportation of minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws, requiring instead the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. What do pro-abortion groups think of Senator McCain? NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood have both given him zero percent, no-confidence ratings because he has stood up against them for decades. John McCain’s opposition to abortion has been consistent.
Senator McCain also strongly believes in the institution of marriage. He voted for and supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and same-sex partner benefits. Senator McCain endorsed and campaigned for an initiative to amend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as between one man and woman. The defining issue for any candidate who seeks the presidency next year will be that person’s vision for conducting the war against terrorists and our mission in Iraq; there is no one stronger on this issue, or with more credibility, than John McCain.
His support for a safe and secure Middle East is well documented. And Senator McCain’s belief in the relationship between our eventual success in that region and our safety at home is one that I share.Most conservatives believe in aggressive pursuit of terrorists and jihadists. But John McCain has been willing to put his political career on the line for the sake of his belief that these terrorists must be defeated. As the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain has long been an outspoken critic of the management of the war, and there is plenty to criticize on that score. But Senator McCain has also been stronger than all others in his belief in the absolute importance of victory and in his own principled dedication to seeking peace and security over the political expediency of defeatism. Conservatives who believe deeply in the responsibility to defend our country know that no leadership trait is more vital to our next president. More than any other reason, this is why conservatives should support John McCain. In matters of national security, he instinctively understands threats to the United States, and he knows what needs to be done about them.
Even in the face of political adversity, he is unwavering in his commitment to America’s security.
— Jon Kyl is a Republican senator from Arizona.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
**BLANK** for President in 2008?!
It seems that every time I turn on the news, read the paper or listen to the radio, we as a nation have become all consumed with the 2008 elections. In 2004 we were told that it was the biggest election of our generation. I feel that now, EVERY election will be the election of a lifetime.
Candidates are spending idiotic amounts of money to reach voters who probably made up their mind without seeing their million dollar commercial. (at least, in a perfect world an intelligent decision wouldn't be made by such ridiculous standards)
Because I work in the political/fundraising field, I have the opportunity to speak to people across the nation about different issues that may or may not concern voters on election day. I find it hysterical to peruse periodicals and listen to people discuss issues as if the political atmosphere of today's world hangs solely on ONE issue.
I understand that we all have issues that are important to us. I understand that while national security and lower taxes are my two main issues, yours may be more along a social cause; such as marriage (& who has & does not have the right to marry) & abortion.
The fact of the matter is though, as a conservative, I simply cannot stomach the thought of having a Clinton in the White House. I cannot stand the thought of the Democrats having control of Congress and the Executive branch simultaneously.
It angers me when I hear conservatives babble on about how they wouldn't vote for Giuliani in a million years because he's "too liberal"- or how McCain isn't "pro-life enough" or how Romney is "Mormon". Let's get real. Let's look at the facts.
When Bill & Hill took to the White House they wanted (& publicly stated) that 2000 MORE abortion clinics would be opened by the time they left office in 2000. They decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms to promote safe sex. Can you see Giuliani disgracing the home of great leaders in such a way, or promising such a thing? McCain's voting record since the beginning of his senate career has been pro-life. How can you not be "pro-life enough" with a zero rating from Planned Parenthood & NARAL? Mitt's a mo. So what. Let's move on. His great grandfather practiced polygamy? My mother is a whore. I shouldn't be judged for her issues, he shouldn't be judged for the plights of his ancestors.
It seems that conservatives don't have enough to bitch about these days. They are unhappy with President Bush. We didn't keep control of Congress, probably because people are tired of career politicians that lie & pander, then flip-flop once they've got your vote. Miraculously though, the "Perfect" candidate is going to appear just in time to save the GOP & the rest of America from the wrath of Hillary? I'm failing to see the logic here.
Why don't we look at it in a pro vs con sort of way.
Hillary: radical judges, problematic scandals that have plagued her since she married Bill, repealing the Bush tax cuts, raising other taxes to pay for her proposed health care, anti-life semitism
Any of the [viable] GOP Candidates: pro-life (or at least apathetic about the issue enough to steer clear of pissing off the base), pro-family values (so Rudy's had a few wives, I've known Pastors who have had more...), pro-military/national security, LOWER taxes
Several of the dem noms have already stated that they will repeal the Bush tax cuts & set into motion new ways to pay for the health care plans they are all touting. Who's going to pay for this? The rich. The problem? Every democrat has a different view of that line between rich & middle class. When do I cross over from middle class to living extremely well? Your guess is as good as mine...I don't know about you, but I'm not really ready to find out though!
I think that if conservatives don't pull their heads out of their idealistic asses soon enough, we're going to be facing another 1996 campaign. Do we vote for the "Dole" candidate, whom no one was overly excited about, or do we keep Clinton, who's obviously plagued by controversy & scandal? Get excited about something in a candidate. Is he your perfect choice? Probably not, but you know what? I'd rather have a moderate Republican than a Clinton any day...
PS - I read the latest Zogby Poll. It looks as if McCain & Giuliani can both beat out Clinton (as of now), our weakness might just be this Obama kid...let's hope him & the hag have it out enough that they kill each other on the evening news. The Republican Party's best hope for winning this election could come in the form of a lackluster attorney from North Carolina... Stay tuned folks!
Candidates are spending idiotic amounts of money to reach voters who probably made up their mind without seeing their million dollar commercial. (at least, in a perfect world an intelligent decision wouldn't be made by such ridiculous standards)
Because I work in the political/fundraising field, I have the opportunity to speak to people across the nation about different issues that may or may not concern voters on election day. I find it hysterical to peruse periodicals and listen to people discuss issues as if the political atmosphere of today's world hangs solely on ONE issue.
I understand that we all have issues that are important to us. I understand that while national security and lower taxes are my two main issues, yours may be more along a social cause; such as marriage (& who has & does not have the right to marry) & abortion.
The fact of the matter is though, as a conservative, I simply cannot stomach the thought of having a Clinton in the White House. I cannot stand the thought of the Democrats having control of Congress and the Executive branch simultaneously.
It angers me when I hear conservatives babble on about how they wouldn't vote for Giuliani in a million years because he's "too liberal"- or how McCain isn't "pro-life enough" or how Romney is "Mormon". Let's get real. Let's look at the facts.
When Bill & Hill took to the White House they wanted (& publicly stated) that 2000 MORE abortion clinics would be opened by the time they left office in 2000. They decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms to promote safe sex. Can you see Giuliani disgracing the home of great leaders in such a way, or promising such a thing? McCain's voting record since the beginning of his senate career has been pro-life. How can you not be "pro-life enough" with a zero rating from Planned Parenthood & NARAL? Mitt's a mo. So what. Let's move on. His great grandfather practiced polygamy? My mother is a whore. I shouldn't be judged for her issues, he shouldn't be judged for the plights of his ancestors.
It seems that conservatives don't have enough to bitch about these days. They are unhappy with President Bush. We didn't keep control of Congress, probably because people are tired of career politicians that lie & pander, then flip-flop once they've got your vote. Miraculously though, the "Perfect" candidate is going to appear just in time to save the GOP & the rest of America from the wrath of Hillary? I'm failing to see the logic here.
Why don't we look at it in a pro vs con sort of way.
Hillary: radical judges, problematic scandals that have plagued her since she married Bill, repealing the Bush tax cuts, raising other taxes to pay for her proposed health care, anti-life semitism
Any of the [viable] GOP Candidates: pro-life (or at least apathetic about the issue enough to steer clear of pissing off the base), pro-family values (so Rudy's had a few wives, I've known Pastors who have had more...), pro-military/national security, LOWER taxes
Several of the dem noms have already stated that they will repeal the Bush tax cuts & set into motion new ways to pay for the health care plans they are all touting. Who's going to pay for this? The rich. The problem? Every democrat has a different view of that line between rich & middle class. When do I cross over from middle class to living extremely well? Your guess is as good as mine...I don't know about you, but I'm not really ready to find out though!
I think that if conservatives don't pull their heads out of their idealistic asses soon enough, we're going to be facing another 1996 campaign. Do we vote for the "Dole" candidate, whom no one was overly excited about, or do we keep Clinton, who's obviously plagued by controversy & scandal? Get excited about something in a candidate. Is he your perfect choice? Probably not, but you know what? I'd rather have a moderate Republican than a Clinton any day...
PS - I read the latest Zogby Poll. It looks as if McCain & Giuliani can both beat out Clinton (as of now), our weakness might just be this Obama kid...let's hope him & the hag have it out enough that they kill each other on the evening news. The Republican Party's best hope for winning this election could come in the form of a lackluster attorney from North Carolina... Stay tuned folks!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Let's Get with the Times
In all honesty, I can't figure out what all the fuss is about lately. It seems that the media has forgotten that they've been pushing sex down our throats as a cultural "norm" for as long as I've been alive, and now they are shocked at the fruits of their seed? Give me a break.
First, Miss USA, Tara Conner is called in to see "The Donald" for her behavior, including underage drinking. Then the big question of the week is, "Will she be dethroned!?"
Secondly, an announcement was made that Miss Teen USA is suffering from her own 'personal' but very public problems when she posed for a "naughty" photoshoot.
With Britney Spears & Paris Hilton showing their 'hoo-has' all over town, Lindsey Lohan and her underage drinking being plastered on Page Six every week, and the reigning teen fashion calling for barely visible articles of clothing, how can anyone be surprised, let alone shocked that these two girls have made the decisions that they've made.
I personally think that these are non-issues. I think the media should focus on something more important.
This morning on the Today show there was an entire segment dedicated to uncovering the "myth" of teenagers abstaining from sex. In the 1940s, 88% of women had sex in their teens, in 2006? A "shocking" 9 out of 10 teenagers are sexually active. I didnt think it was all that shocking. I didn't think it sounded too "off".
But I guess it just goes to show that a lot of people (parents, mostly) want to point the fingers at other people and say, "My child would never do that."
If you REALLY think that your child is that one out of the ten, either you need a reality check, or I'd like to say congratulations for raising a morally uncompromised teen.
In the mean time though, lets look at it this way...underage drinking and pre-marital sex aren't the end of the world. Are they desirable habits? No, absolutely not, but it could be crack cocaine & prostitution. Lets just put everything in perspective.
First, Miss USA, Tara Conner is called in to see "The Donald" for her behavior, including underage drinking. Then the big question of the week is, "Will she be dethroned!?"
Secondly, an announcement was made that Miss Teen USA is suffering from her own 'personal' but very public problems when she posed for a "naughty" photoshoot.
With Britney Spears & Paris Hilton showing their 'hoo-has' all over town, Lindsey Lohan and her underage drinking being plastered on Page Six every week, and the reigning teen fashion calling for barely visible articles of clothing, how can anyone be surprised, let alone shocked that these two girls have made the decisions that they've made.
I personally think that these are non-issues. I think the media should focus on something more important.
This morning on the Today show there was an entire segment dedicated to uncovering the "myth" of teenagers abstaining from sex. In the 1940s, 88% of women had sex in their teens, in 2006? A "shocking" 9 out of 10 teenagers are sexually active. I didnt think it was all that shocking. I didn't think it sounded too "off".
But I guess it just goes to show that a lot of people (parents, mostly) want to point the fingers at other people and say, "My child would never do that."
If you REALLY think that your child is that one out of the ten, either you need a reality check, or I'd like to say congratulations for raising a morally uncompromised teen.
In the mean time though, lets look at it this way...underage drinking and pre-marital sex aren't the end of the world. Are they desirable habits? No, absolutely not, but it could be crack cocaine & prostitution. Lets just put everything in perspective.
Monday, December 18, 2006
2006 in Review
I just realized that I was pretty non-existent in the "blog" world this year. -My apologies for that. I'll send out an update and sort of teeter on about a few issues that no one but myself and a handful of other people probably care about.
I started many different jobs and was unhappy at them all. So I quit.
Someone told me a few weeks ago that I am a terrible person for being so indecisive in my career. I told them that they had it all wrong. If I was indecisive, I'd still be at the same job I started at this time last year, and I'd still be miserable. Life is short. Why be miserable at the one place you spend the majority of your time? My bills are paid. My dog is fed. No one can talk about me being irresponsible, as I cover my own ass.
I've stopped playing it safe. I don't stay somewhere because its what I "should" do. I am not friends with people because I always have been. I don't follow along like a good little girl anymore. I've learned to question authority, when appropriate and to question myself. I've learned to stand up for myself & realize my own value. If you don't value me, I don't have time for you. (It's something I wish I could teach all young women to do. Its a shame I didn't learn until I was 25!)
I've found myself tossing out careers and other bits of my past. Things that hold no bearing on who I will be in a year. Things that don't shape me, and I do not shape them.
Finding that I cannot for the life of me, be as juvenile and naive about friendships and relationships as I once was. Liars and cheaters, backstabbers and the likes hold no place in my circle. Honesty is the best policy. If you can't be honest with me, you either don't trust me or are hiding something, which leads me to believe we shouldn't be friends anyway.
I have discovered a lot about myself, and am continuously learning. But that's life. Life is a journey. If you've gotten to the end of your journey of discovery and you've nothing left to learn about yourself or others, then why continue to live anyway?
I started many different jobs and was unhappy at them all. So I quit.
Someone told me a few weeks ago that I am a terrible person for being so indecisive in my career. I told them that they had it all wrong. If I was indecisive, I'd still be at the same job I started at this time last year, and I'd still be miserable. Life is short. Why be miserable at the one place you spend the majority of your time? My bills are paid. My dog is fed. No one can talk about me being irresponsible, as I cover my own ass.
I've stopped playing it safe. I don't stay somewhere because its what I "should" do. I am not friends with people because I always have been. I don't follow along like a good little girl anymore. I've learned to question authority, when appropriate and to question myself. I've learned to stand up for myself & realize my own value. If you don't value me, I don't have time for you. (It's something I wish I could teach all young women to do. Its a shame I didn't learn until I was 25!)
I've found myself tossing out careers and other bits of my past. Things that hold no bearing on who I will be in a year. Things that don't shape me, and I do not shape them.
Finding that I cannot for the life of me, be as juvenile and naive about friendships and relationships as I once was. Liars and cheaters, backstabbers and the likes hold no place in my circle. Honesty is the best policy. If you can't be honest with me, you either don't trust me or are hiding something, which leads me to believe we shouldn't be friends anyway.
I have discovered a lot about myself, and am continuously learning. But that's life. Life is a journey. If you've gotten to the end of your journey of discovery and you've nothing left to learn about yourself or others, then why continue to live anyway?
Friday, April 28, 2006
United 93
There are no words to express the feelings that I'm having right now.I just sat through, what felt like dejavu.
On the morning of September 11th, I was awakened by Carolyn to hear, "Val, we've been attacked."In a groggy haze of confusion, I stumbled out of bed & to the door and said, "What? What are you talking about?"
"A plane hit the tower..."
We watched the second plane hit moments later. I sat there...waiting, watching, crying. Not knowing what to say. Not knowing what to do.
As I sat in the movie theater tonight, I felt the same emotion come over me.Almost 5 years later, and it still doesn't feel real. I can't imagine someone, anyone having as much hate for the United States, as those terrorists did...DO...
Watching mothers call children & husbands call wives. Hearing the infectuous, yet silent roar of "the Lords Prayer" being said, seconds before the brave passengers charged faithfully toward their demise.Hearing one man state, "We are going to die anyway, we might as well do whatever we can." -Going down still fighting.
Would I keep fighting until the end? or would I give up?
September 11, 2001 united the nation in a way that's never been seen. Neighbors took the time to speak. Parents took the time to listen. People took the time to pray.To think that we are hated because we can love, live and speak freely is a hard truth to face. We do not understand it, because we have never known it. There are some that face this truth everyday. If they try to live the way that we do, they are mamed or murdered.
To watch the people re-enact their part in the day, and the events brought on a feeling of courage and strength. To live through September 11, although still on the ground, yet playing an important role in the Command Towers, and then to turn around & have to do again...Could you relive the worst day of your life so that others may know exactly what happened?
For once, I am proud to say, this movie was not politicized, from what I can tell. There was no left view or right swing. It was simply the story of what happened to those people that layed down their lives to save the lives of hundreds of others. They didn't go quietly.Can you imagine? The Nation's Capitol...the very place that stands for our freedom, that gives us the right to tell this story again, may have been wiped out in moments...
Take a moment to remember how blessed we are. Then take a moment to pray for the families of those who lost on that fateful day.It may have been five years ago, but the pain is probably just as sharp today as it was then for those who lost.
Never forget -support those who fight for your freedom.Realize that there are people who are just now gaining the right to pray as they wish, and speak to whom they choose. Thank God for your rights as an American, and remember that there are those that would love to be in your shoes, no matter how bad you may think you've got it.
Memorable Quotes: September 11, 2001
On the morning of September 11th, I was awakened by Carolyn to hear, "Val, we've been attacked."In a groggy haze of confusion, I stumbled out of bed & to the door and said, "What? What are you talking about?"
"A plane hit the tower..."
We watched the second plane hit moments later. I sat there...waiting, watching, crying. Not knowing what to say. Not knowing what to do.
As I sat in the movie theater tonight, I felt the same emotion come over me.Almost 5 years later, and it still doesn't feel real. I can't imagine someone, anyone having as much hate for the United States, as those terrorists did...DO...
Watching mothers call children & husbands call wives. Hearing the infectuous, yet silent roar of "the Lords Prayer" being said, seconds before the brave passengers charged faithfully toward their demise.Hearing one man state, "We are going to die anyway, we might as well do whatever we can." -Going down still fighting.
Would I keep fighting until the end? or would I give up?
September 11, 2001 united the nation in a way that's never been seen. Neighbors took the time to speak. Parents took the time to listen. People took the time to pray.To think that we are hated because we can love, live and speak freely is a hard truth to face. We do not understand it, because we have never known it. There are some that face this truth everyday. If they try to live the way that we do, they are mamed or murdered.
To watch the people re-enact their part in the day, and the events brought on a feeling of courage and strength. To live through September 11, although still on the ground, yet playing an important role in the Command Towers, and then to turn around & have to do again...Could you relive the worst day of your life so that others may know exactly what happened?
For once, I am proud to say, this movie was not politicized, from what I can tell. There was no left view or right swing. It was simply the story of what happened to those people that layed down their lives to save the lives of hundreds of others. They didn't go quietly.Can you imagine? The Nation's Capitol...the very place that stands for our freedom, that gives us the right to tell this story again, may have been wiped out in moments...
Take a moment to remember how blessed we are. Then take a moment to pray for the families of those who lost on that fateful day.It may have been five years ago, but the pain is probably just as sharp today as it was then for those who lost.
Never forget -support those who fight for your freedom.Realize that there are people who are just now gaining the right to pray as they wish, and speak to whom they choose. Thank God for your rights as an American, and remember that there are those that would love to be in your shoes, no matter how bad you may think you've got it.
Memorable Quotes: September 11, 2001
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Stunt for Free Speach
Marc Ecko of Marc Ecko Enterprises rented a 747 plane (and the hangar in which it was housed) & had one side of it painted to be an exact replica of Air Force One.
Then, a video was made of a hooded man hopping barbed wire fences, and the like to spray paint the words, "Still Free" on the side of the jet.
It apparently was supposed to be a mark towards freedom of speach.
As far as I'm concerned it was a waste of money, but then again, this is America, and people have the freedom to be as ridiculous as they want...even if spending half a million dollars just to spray paint a fake Air Force One is what you want to do.
Crazy...and useless.
http://www.stillfree.com
Then, a video was made of a hooded man hopping barbed wire fences, and the like to spray paint the words, "Still Free" on the side of the jet.
It apparently was supposed to be a mark towards freedom of speach.
As far as I'm concerned it was a waste of money, but then again, this is America, and people have the freedom to be as ridiculous as they want...even if spending half a million dollars just to spray paint a fake Air Force One is what you want to do.
Crazy...and useless.
http://www.stillfree.com
Monday, March 20, 2006
Hagsville
So, I'm sitting in DCA (Reagan Nat'l Airport) on a layover to NY, when I see all of these Secret Service people looming around the gate. I was on my way to Albany. They were hanging out near the gate headed to LaGuardia. I sent a text to a couple people saying "must be someone big going to NYC tomorrow, the SS is out in full force."
When I say "out in full force" I mean, there were about seven of these guys hanging out.
They give the final boarding call for the flight to LaGuardia. Nothing happens. They don't close the gate, they don't shut the doors. SS is still hanging out...
I get up, on my way to use the ladies (so of course, I put away my camera...) & in comes another secret service detail. There were probably around another 8 in that detail.
So, who was all the hoopla for???
None other than Miss Haggy Haggerton herself...Hilary Rodham Clinton.
She looked TERRIBLE. And what a twat, if I may use such language. Who is she? Why does she have the right to show up 2 minutes AFTER the gate closes, with an entourage of nearly 20, and to be so rude to fellow flyers?
I suppose this has something to do with the fact that she's not only a US Senator, but also a former first lady. But the audacity. I just can't comprehend anyone being as asinine as she was. Didn't smile. Had nothing nice to say when well wishers spoke to her.
Can you imagine anyone wishing HER a safe flight? Thank God she wasn't on my flight. I think that would have been the day that I was arrested by the air marshall!
When I say "out in full force" I mean, there were about seven of these guys hanging out.
They give the final boarding call for the flight to LaGuardia. Nothing happens. They don't close the gate, they don't shut the doors. SS is still hanging out...
I get up, on my way to use the ladies (so of course, I put away my camera...) & in comes another secret service detail. There were probably around another 8 in that detail.
So, who was all the hoopla for???
None other than Miss Haggy Haggerton herself...Hilary Rodham Clinton.
She looked TERRIBLE. And what a twat, if I may use such language. Who is she? Why does she have the right to show up 2 minutes AFTER the gate closes, with an entourage of nearly 20, and to be so rude to fellow flyers?
I suppose this has something to do with the fact that she's not only a US Senator, but also a former first lady. But the audacity. I just can't comprehend anyone being as asinine as she was. Didn't smile. Had nothing nice to say when well wishers spoke to her.
Can you imagine anyone wishing HER a safe flight? Thank God she wasn't on my flight. I think that would have been the day that I was arrested by the air marshall!
Monday, March 13, 2006
South Park
The Associated Press is reporting that Isaac Hayes has resigned as the voice of "Chef" on Comedy Central's popular cartoon, "South Park."Hayes sites the shows lack of religious tolerance as the reason that he has quit.
"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins. Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored. As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."
Show creators Matt Stone & Trey Parker state that it is their belief that Hayes only resigned because this past year they featured an episode that mocked Scientology. Hayes is a devout member of the Christian Scientology group, which is a host to a plethora of Hollywood A-listers, such as Tom Cruise & John Travolta, and was believed to have been very offended over the show.
Stone said, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem -and he's cashed plenty of checks - with our show making fun of Christians."
Parker chimed in, "We never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."
So I suppose the show will have to find a new ladies man, but for now I say, "GOOD RIDDANCE!"
Friday, March 10, 2006
...In Other News...
Time for "Posh Spice" to stay out of the cancer box/lay off the tanning oil/quit fakin' bakin' or whatever you call it.Note to Victoria Beckham:
When your skin begins to resemble the color of burnt plastic, we've got an issue. You are white. I understand the need for a HEALTHY glow, but lets get real. You look GROSS.
That's all I'm saying...but honestly...
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
This Just In
Apparently, a huge weapons cache was uncovered in Western Iraq on Monday. It is said to be among the largest found in the Anbar province to date.
According to sources, more than 3,000 pieces were uncovered during a recon patrol.
So for those of you who are still convinced that it isn't possible that WMD's are hiding somewhere, inside or outside of Iraq, let's get real. Anything is possible.
Thankfully, the discovery & confiscation of such munitions means that there should be a reduction in anti-Iraq attacks. One can only hope, anyway.
For more information, read here:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?article=35254§ion=104
According to sources, more than 3,000 pieces were uncovered during a recon patrol.
So for those of you who are still convinced that it isn't possible that WMD's are hiding somewhere, inside or outside of Iraq, let's get real. Anything is possible.
Thankfully, the discovery & confiscation of such munitions means that there should be a reduction in anti-Iraq attacks. One can only hope, anyway.
For more information, read here:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?article=35254§ion=104
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Battle Continues
The newly appointed justices of the Supreme Court will face what may be one of their most heated cases to come.
Today the Supreme Court will look at the 2003 law passed by Congress to ban late term abortion, or "Partial Birth Abortion." Judges in California, New York & Nebraska claimed the law was unconstitutional & so the law never went into effect.
Opposition to the two newest members of the high court will of course be waiting for the law to be granted constitutional, because the Right to Life fight was among the top concerns for why these two conservative men should not be confirmed. When the case was heard before, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the tie breaking vote, ending the fight at 4-5, although she was considered at one time to be a conservative appointment.
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
It is beyond me why anyone would ever find it constitutional to take an unborn, yet still living child's life. Especially in this cruel & tortured form. I hope that the justices do what they feel is necessary & right and find that the late term abortion law is more than constitutional, but that it is needed.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
November, 2004. Memories in Pictures.
Irma, Val, Don, Trey & Yale..."Working" at Mandalay Bay...and later on in the Hard Rock Penthouse.
Millie & Val...Tired. Its Been a LONG Day!
Val, Justin & Jen. We Won the Bloody Phone. Go Team!
Jen & Val. Missing our Team Leader, Mario.
DOMARA! Always Causing Problems..."You Should Name Your Cars After Women Because Then You Treat Them Better."
Pam, Val & Mary. Those Ladies Worked SO Hard for Me & The Legal Team!
Mista Carr! Boy, I Could Go For Some of His BBQ Right Now (& some 2am putting & 3 cases of beer! lol)
Val, Gabi, Jen & Irma. The Republican Babes. ;o)~ Enjoying Our Victory Meal, and What Would Be Our Last Time Together.
Group Photo:
Dave, Millie, Jen, Val, Gabi, Irma, Chris. Front: Stephanie. Britany.
Millie & Val...Tired. Its Been a LONG Day!
Val, Justin & Jen. We Won the Bloody Phone. Go Team!
Jen & Val. Missing our Team Leader, Mario.
DOMARA! Always Causing Problems..."You Should Name Your Cars After Women Because Then You Treat Them Better."
Pam, Val & Mary. Those Ladies Worked SO Hard for Me & The Legal Team!
Mista Carr! Boy, I Could Go For Some of His BBQ Right Now (& some 2am putting & 3 cases of beer! lol)
Val, Gabi, Jen & Irma. The Republican Babes. ;o)~ Enjoying Our Victory Meal, and What Would Be Our Last Time Together.
Group Photo:
Dave, Millie, Jen, Val, Gabi, Irma, Chris. Front: Stephanie. Britany.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
The Right to Choose?
It seems that the right to choose is only good enough when it means that you are choosing to see things their way.
Apparently, "Abortion Rights" groups have helped three Massachusetts women bring a law suit against Wal-Mart. The law-suit basically claims that the company should be forced to stock Emergency Contraception, or Plan B pills in its pharmacies.
As for right now the law suit cannot be upheld because state law requires only "commonly prescribed" medications to be stocked by pharmacies. EC is not commonly prescribed at this time in the state of Massachusetts. In the state of Illinois, however, it is required by state law that it be available at ALL pharmacies, and the Wal-Marts there do carry it.
Wal-Mart is known for its conservative views on many subjects from books & products that it will or will not carry, to its pharmaceutical choices. The decision not to carry Plan B should not have come as a shock or surprise to anyone.
CVS is the states largest pharmacy chain, and does carry the Emergency Contraception drug.
In Canada, the drug has already been switched to a non-prescription/over the counter medication.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Decisions, Decisions
After finally settling into my cozy job at St. Joe's hospital, I have been asked to move again.
I long for the excitement of the political field. Always on the go, always under pressure, always on a deadline.
But...at the same time, I love the fact that I have something permanent & stable here. I make decent money (and once my raise kicks in, it will be awesome!), will have health insurance & vacation pay soon. I enjoy the people I work with & I am learning new things everyday, as well as meeting new people. I am finally letting the roots that I re-planted last year have time to grow.
Do i really want to dig those up again to move somewhere like NM, CO or even back to NV?
Is the thrill of another win worth throwing my life into total chaos again? Maybe next time I'll never recover from it. Its taken me a year to get this far. Next time it could take longer.
I'm not sure what to do. Right now I'm just looking for guidance & wisdom.
I long for the excitement of the political field. Always on the go, always under pressure, always on a deadline.
But...at the same time, I love the fact that I have something permanent & stable here. I make decent money (and once my raise kicks in, it will be awesome!), will have health insurance & vacation pay soon. I enjoy the people I work with & I am learning new things everyday, as well as meeting new people. I am finally letting the roots that I re-planted last year have time to grow.
Do i really want to dig those up again to move somewhere like NM, CO or even back to NV?
Is the thrill of another win worth throwing my life into total chaos again? Maybe next time I'll never recover from it. Its taken me a year to get this far. Next time it could take longer.
I'm not sure what to do. Right now I'm just looking for guidance & wisdom.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
One in a Million
I can't list on 10 fingers & 10 toes how many women's magazine's there are out there. It would take 20-30 more fingers & toes to do so... Every time you turn around there is a new one. Vanity Fair, Cosmo, Cosmo Girl, Vogue, InStyle, Allure, Elle, and the list goes on & on & on & on & on. A new one, always claiming to be better, to give you advice that you cannot live without, life changing information for a better YOU! Well, now we'll have another one to choose from...
Martha Stewart has announced that she will be launching a new women's magazine, "Blueprint: Design Your Life". This magazine is targeted towards the demographic of women, ages 25-45. Stewart feels that this is a crucial time in a modern woman's life. Many are establishing their careers, starting families, and "upgrading" their lives. The design of the magazine is to help women with not only fashion, but decorating, entertaining and "life organization."
Hopefully, this magazine will not turn into the same hum-drum that can be picked up on any newsstand & in every bookstore across the nation, but it will be something with tangible advice, both usable & innovative.
I'm tired of opening up a magazine every month and the same 5 topics are covered. Pink is the new Green (or black), Flats or stillettos?, Dress for your body type & how to give a man the most incredible orgasm he's ever had. (Not that these aren't "pressing" issues, but I do feel that we can step it up a notch or two...)
I also hope it doesn't turn into a place for liberals to rant & rave about their current "issue" with conservatives or vice versa. A place to once again platform abortion "rights" & other "women's issues". All to often Women's Magazines take a stance and never cover both sides.
Martha Stewart is a wise woman (unless we are discussing stock options, lol), and hopefully she will understand that if she wants to be successful she will need to cater to BOTH sides, and cover things that aren't being discussed in the 'surface' reads we find today.
Martha Stewart has announced that she will be launching a new women's magazine, "Blueprint: Design Your Life". This magazine is targeted towards the demographic of women, ages 25-45. Stewart feels that this is a crucial time in a modern woman's life. Many are establishing their careers, starting families, and "upgrading" their lives. The design of the magazine is to help women with not only fashion, but decorating, entertaining and "life organization."
Hopefully, this magazine will not turn into the same hum-drum that can be picked up on any newsstand & in every bookstore across the nation, but it will be something with tangible advice, both usable & innovative.
I'm tired of opening up a magazine every month and the same 5 topics are covered. Pink is the new Green (or black), Flats or stillettos?, Dress for your body type & how to give a man the most incredible orgasm he's ever had. (Not that these aren't "pressing" issues, but I do feel that we can step it up a notch or two...)
I also hope it doesn't turn into a place for liberals to rant & rave about their current "issue" with conservatives or vice versa. A place to once again platform abortion "rights" & other "women's issues". All to often Women's Magazines take a stance and never cover both sides.
Martha Stewart is a wise woman (unless we are discussing stock options, lol), and hopefully she will understand that if she wants to be successful she will need to cater to BOTH sides, and cover things that aren't being discussed in the 'surface' reads we find today.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Move Over, Barbie
Fulla, the Egyptian counterpart to Barbie is selling more rapidly then the "blonde bombshell" of the West (in Cairo).
About 70% of Egyptian women still choose to dress in the traditional arabic style, never showing an arm or a leg. Fulla was created to represent the modern girls of the middle east, wearing the veil, and foregoing skimpy skirts that are traditionally worn by Barbie, Skipper & the American dolls. She can still don jeans, and more up-to-date, yet conservative fashion, with her slightly less busty figure. (Who isn't less busty when compared to Barbie?!)
No plans yet on getting Fulla boyfriend, its said that it would be inappropriate by Arab standards. But she does have two lighter haired friends, Yasmine & Nada.
Happy shopping.
About 70% of Egyptian women still choose to dress in the traditional arabic style, never showing an arm or a leg. Fulla was created to represent the modern girls of the middle east, wearing the veil, and foregoing skimpy skirts that are traditionally worn by Barbie, Skipper & the American dolls. She can still don jeans, and more up-to-date, yet conservative fashion, with her slightly less busty figure. (Who isn't less busty when compared to Barbie?!)
No plans yet on getting Fulla boyfriend, its said that it would be inappropriate by Arab standards. But she does have two lighter haired friends, Yasmine & Nada.
Happy shopping.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Visiting Forces
Keep it in your pants boys...
Four U.S. Marines are being charged with RAPE after a 22-year old Filipino woman accused the soldiers of gang-rape. Originally there were six soldiers charged. Two men have had the charges dropped, and afidavits have been submitted by 5 Marines.
A Filipino van driver is considered an accomplice to the crime, and is also being charged. The Marines are being held at the U.S. Embassy.
Visiting Forces Agreements maintain that the charges and trial must be resolved in one years time.
Philipine and U.S. relations were only recently repaired in 1999, thru the VFA agreement, before that, Philipine Senators ended the treaty that allowed naval & air bases to be occupied by the U.S., that were once used for staging areas during Vietnam.
Four U.S. Marines are being charged with RAPE after a 22-year old Filipino woman accused the soldiers of gang-rape. Originally there were six soldiers charged. Two men have had the charges dropped, and afidavits have been submitted by 5 Marines.
A Filipino van driver is considered an accomplice to the crime, and is also being charged. The Marines are being held at the U.S. Embassy.
Visiting Forces Agreements maintain that the charges and trial must be resolved in one years time.
Philipine and U.S. relations were only recently repaired in 1999, thru the VFA agreement, before that, Philipine Senators ended the treaty that allowed naval & air bases to be occupied by the U.S., that were once used for staging areas during Vietnam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)