Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and others were scrambling on the day of the Iraq Election to find the bad news.
It went something like this beginning before the election: the elections cannot take place on January 30th...if they do take place, they will be a failure...if they're not a failure, they are illegitimate...if they're legitimate, it doesn't matter for Iraq...if it matters for Iraq, it says nothing about the Bush policy in Iraq...if it says anything about the Bush policy in Iraq, it says something bad.
or: only 30% will vote...if more vote, the turnout was down where it matters...where does it matter? wherever it was down.
and we've been hearing that maybe the turnout actually is a statement about how the Iraqis want the Americans to leave.
Face it, this was a success. Deal with it.
There's more to do. There will be more violence. But the flag of freedom was planted yesterday in the heart of the Middle East.
As Churchill said, it's probably not the end or even the beginning of the end; but maybe the end of the beginning.
A good day for peace.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Good Day for America
The Inauguration is over. The president and vice president have been sworn in and the speech has been given.
Generally, I thought the speech was good. Bold. Broad. Sweeping. Not bringing freedom to Iraqis but to the world. Not giving a tax cut, but changing the tax code. It seemed not to be so much a political speech as it was a change the world speech. It was not so much about America, but about the world.
Anytime a President says something 'is the policy of the United States' it's a big deal. When the president says it is our policy to take or support democracy and liberty anywhere and everywhere in the world, it's big. And will demand future presidents to live up to it or clearly distance from it.
What about Taiwan in the days to come? When they 'stand for their liberty' will we stand with them? What about violations in Myanmar and China and other parts of the world? The speech was eloquent, but the devil's always in the details? The 'what' is easier...the how and why gets messier.
The theme of the speech was that our safety and security are tied to freedom being spread worldwide.
Here is the text of the speech.
Generally, I thought the speech was good. Bold. Broad. Sweeping. Not bringing freedom to Iraqis but to the world. Not giving a tax cut, but changing the tax code. It seemed not to be so much a political speech as it was a change the world speech. It was not so much about America, but about the world.
Anytime a President says something 'is the policy of the United States' it's a big deal. When the president says it is our policy to take or support democracy and liberty anywhere and everywhere in the world, it's big. And will demand future presidents to live up to it or clearly distance from it.
What about Taiwan in the days to come? When they 'stand for their liberty' will we stand with them? What about violations in Myanmar and China and other parts of the world? The speech was eloquent, but the devil's always in the details? The 'what' is easier...the how and why gets messier.
The theme of the speech was that our safety and security are tied to freedom being spread worldwide.
Here is the text of the speech.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Pay for Play
I am sure this goes on. I hate it.
There's no way it can be justified (unless of course I could get a similar deal).
There's no way it can be justified (unless of course I could get a similar deal).
Monday, January 03, 2005
Is Bush going to disappoint conservatives?
Since the election, President Bush has had many opportunities to mention among his agenda items some of the conservative issues that I believe got him elected.
In each of those three chances (two news conferences and then again before the newly elected members of congress), the president has talked about how he will spend his political capital. He has mentioned Social Security reform, tort reform, education, immigration, taxes, and the war on terror.
Before the election, 'respect for life' and the 'sanctity of marriage' were huge issues in every stump speech. But since the election there has been nothing from the president. A little from Karl Rove once, but nothing from the president.
Conservatives expect the president to stand up and stand strong on the issues that were so highlighted before the election. Life. Marriage. Nominating strict constructionists for the Supreme Court.
With two major speeches this month (Inaugural Address and the State of the Union), the president has the chance to make clear what he intends to do about these issues.
What doesn't get talked about doesn't get started and what doesn't get started in the first year of the second term, has a tough chance getting done.
Will social conservatives be disappointed? Or is this all going to fly under the radar until it gets done?
In each of those three chances (two news conferences and then again before the newly elected members of congress), the president has talked about how he will spend his political capital. He has mentioned Social Security reform, tort reform, education, immigration, taxes, and the war on terror.
Before the election, 'respect for life' and the 'sanctity of marriage' were huge issues in every stump speech. But since the election there has been nothing from the president. A little from Karl Rove once, but nothing from the president.
Conservatives expect the president to stand up and stand strong on the issues that were so highlighted before the election. Life. Marriage. Nominating strict constructionists for the Supreme Court.
With two major speeches this month (Inaugural Address and the State of the Union), the president has the chance to make clear what he intends to do about these issues.
What doesn't get talked about doesn't get started and what doesn't get started in the first year of the second term, has a tough chance getting done.
Will social conservatives be disappointed? Or is this all going to fly under the radar until it gets done?
Sunday, January 02, 2005
New Laws for the New Year
The new year always brings new laws.
In New York, skateboarding kids under 14 face a new requirement in the New Year - they must wear safety helmets while riding skateboards in public areas.
And a New Hampshire law lets adopted children get their original birth certificates. Alabama, Alaska, Kansas and Oregon have similar laws.
North Carolina requires car seats for children younger than eight or weighing less than 80 pounds (carpool bummer for your lean 4th grader).
In West Virginia, riders of all-terrain vehicles under age 18 must pass free, state-certified safety courses.
And then there's the new law in California that anyone under 14 years of age must have not only parental permission, but a note from a doctor before they may go to a tanning salon.
Liberals in California believe parents should be involved in the decision to get a tan at a salon, but they should not be involved in the decision to get an abortion.
They would amaze me if they weren't so consistent.
In New York, skateboarding kids under 14 face a new requirement in the New Year - they must wear safety helmets while riding skateboards in public areas.
And a New Hampshire law lets adopted children get their original birth certificates. Alabama, Alaska, Kansas and Oregon have similar laws.
North Carolina requires car seats for children younger than eight or weighing less than 80 pounds (carpool bummer for your lean 4th grader).
In West Virginia, riders of all-terrain vehicles under age 18 must pass free, state-certified safety courses.
And then there's the new law in California that anyone under 14 years of age must have not only parental permission, but a note from a doctor before they may go to a tanning salon.
Liberals in California believe parents should be involved in the decision to get a tan at a salon, but they should not be involved in the decision to get an abortion.
They would amaze me if they weren't so consistent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)