Alright, so the conventions are over; I can start focusing on college more now and Palin can start working on those foreign policy credentials.
We've been seeing it since she was confirmed - the Democrats and media are focusing on her kids, whether or not she can take care of them and do the job, and her inexperience. It is imperative that McCain and his team set an identity for her ASAP.
That speech was only a stepping stone; we all knew she was conservative, now we know that she can be electrifying. That doesn't still the critics; she can be a great pontificator, but if she morphs into Dan Quayle when Joe Biden starts talking about Georgia during the vice presidential debate, the Republicans are in serious trouble.
We can't wait until the debate comes to build a coherent narrative that is acceptable to the American public. We need to do it now, before the Democrats can sink their teeth into her. Eventually, the Democrats are going to understand that attacking her as just a small town mayor and a woman with five kids isn't going to pan out. They'll get to the good stuff soon enough; the investigation into the firing of her brother-in-law, her change of position on the bridge to Ketchikan ("Nowhere), etc.
She better be ready.
It should be noted that this was an excellent choice; I attended the Texas Republican Convention, and people just weren't...enamored with John McCain. It seemed to be a ho-hum affair - Palin has changed that, but we can't lose sight of the fact that she isn't the person who's going to be in charge; McCain is. We need to defend Governor Palin but not make the election about her.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain's Speech
I don't know if it's because I was trying to do college work at the same time but I have a headache after McCain finished up his speech.
Don't get me wrong here; I support John McCain but an orator, this man is not. I'll give him credit for the call to public service and the emotion he demonstrated when it came to to the retelling of his story, but I wanted more meat when it came to the issues. I should be careful about that, because the speech was an hour long already.
We knew this speech wasn't going to have the same kind of punch as Palin's but McCain met expectations; he did everything he needed to do. He introduced himself once again to the American people and humanized himself. The declaration that he hates war and recognizes the evil of it and only wishes to secure the nation was a great sentiment.
But what made this speech so great was the call to reform - McCain stood in a convention of his peers and called them to task. As a party, the Republicans have lost their way and they have lost the trust of the American people. We've been in the wilderness and now it's time to get ourselves out of the woods without burning down the forest. We need to unite the American people, and John McCain's speech laid down some groundwork for that.
When this convention is remembered, it will be regarded as the time the Republican Party set itself on a new path. John McCain's acceptance speech was the first few steps on the road; it's up to Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal to make sure the Republican Party keep on the right track.
I just wish that those protestors hadn't gotten so much attention. Now, I've got more studying to do.
Don't get me wrong here; I support John McCain but an orator, this man is not. I'll give him credit for the call to public service and the emotion he demonstrated when it came to to the retelling of his story, but I wanted more meat when it came to the issues. I should be careful about that, because the speech was an hour long already.
We knew this speech wasn't going to have the same kind of punch as Palin's but McCain met expectations; he did everything he needed to do. He introduced himself once again to the American people and humanized himself. The declaration that he hates war and recognizes the evil of it and only wishes to secure the nation was a great sentiment.
But what made this speech so great was the call to reform - McCain stood in a convention of his peers and called them to task. As a party, the Republicans have lost their way and they have lost the trust of the American people. We've been in the wilderness and now it's time to get ourselves out of the woods without burning down the forest. We need to unite the American people, and John McCain's speech laid down some groundwork for that.
When this convention is remembered, it will be regarded as the time the Republican Party set itself on a new path. John McCain's acceptance speech was the first few steps on the road; it's up to Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal to make sure the Republican Party keep on the right track.
I just wish that those protestors hadn't gotten so much attention. Now, I've got more studying to do.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Scholarship
So there was this scholarship over presidential scholarships. I stayed up late nights while I was in Houston finishing it up and was excited; if there's anything I could win a scholarship over, it's over the presidential campaigns. Well, I didn't win. I've been worked to death from work, school, and my own habits. My wish to get a 3.3 GPA is closing in on me, which was something I should have expected since I've squished this Associate's Degree in one year instead of two. Taking two science classes in summer probably didn't help. Taking the express lane when it comes to education has it's costs...
Anyway, I really worked hard on it and I'm quite proud of it. I didn't want it to waste away somewhere, so here it is, immortialized on a blog page that is never read. :)
At this point in our nation’s illustrious history there are a multitude of pressing matters which plague the well-being and serenity of our nation’s present condition and at the same time threaten America’s future prosperity; the issues that are most integral and vital to securing a superior nation for our posterity if resolved effectively and competently include America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and how skillfully our government can employ diplomacy to defeat our enemies; the government must also display a concerted effort to tame the economic fluctuations which have begun to seriously impact the financial stability of our nation and cause widespread concern among America’s citizenry; the challenge of illegal immigration has become an issue so volatile that the position of now Republican nominee for the Presidency, John McCain, to support an immigration bill co-sponsored by Edward Kennedy caused such conservative outrage it nearly ended his campaign1; John McCain’s campaign recovered but the political fallout has driven other politicians from confronting a problem that costs the American people millions of dollars each year.
These challenges are not new within the context of American history or politics – the annals of American history are fraught with foreign policy crises which have been solved by tactful diplomacy and compromise; the legacy of diplomatic resolutions to foreign problems is a hallmark of America’s greatest triumphs – beginning with Jay’s Treaty under the Washington Administration that sparred the then young nation from being entrenched in the war between French and Britain, to the brilliant masterwork of the Marshall Plan2 that helped rebuild Europe after World War II while also persuading countries to side with America during the Cold War. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to America’s extended standoff with the Soviet Union, the greatest foreign policy achievements have been reached through speech rather than through force. In each of these of those cases, it took a strong executive who was able to able to balance popular opinion with the pragmatic policy necessary to protect and supplement American interests. Foreign policy agreements which have been recorded as triumphs in the annals of American history do not rest solely on the shoulders of a great and talented individual but decisions made by the President often allow these policy agreements to take place. Jay’s Treaty3 was viciously unpopular, but George Washington looked beyond public opinion and to the importance of keeping the country out of war. Opening diplomatic relations with China4 seemed tantamount to getting in bed with the enemy, but Nixon’s choice to do so allowed America to enjoy economic prosperity. Truman’s choice to recognize Israel as an independent nation was scorned by some but was responsible for contributing to the legitimacy of that nation’s very existence5.
The President’s influence is not limited to foreign policy issues of course; Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal initiative can be credited with bringing the U.S. out of the Great Depression6 and Washington’s decision to back Alexander Hamilton’s plan to create a Federal Bank had large implications on the young nation’s future7. A President’s indecision and bad judgment can also cause lasting heartache for America’s prosperity; President Van Buren is largely remembered for the economic panic which occurred under his watch and little else, for instance.8
This year foreign policy, economic, and domestic issues of critical importance to the country’s future will be placed on the President’s desk from day one. The 44th President shall be chosen for that office at one of the ripest moments for change that this country has ever been given. The question is, will he be up to the task?
If he is unable to deal effectively with our foreign policy issues and with our enemies abroad, it will be safe to say that he will be unable to become a celebrated President in our country’s history. Today, the economy has outstripped foreign policy issues like Iraq from the public consciousness but what the average citizen has forgotten is that with a globally interconnected world, foreign policy affects every part of our everyday life. 10 Foreign policy decisions affect the trade barriers and tariffs raised between countries and can have a severe impact on the prices of essential products. The North Atlantic Trade Agreement encouraged economic freedom and interconnectivity between Canada, the United States, and Mexico and despite the loss of jobs; many consider it to be a success9. Often, economic issues can be driven to correct themselves. National security matters, however, rarely sort themselves out without decisive action. An example of how the malaise of a President’s foreign policy can affect America’s prestige would be the year-long hostage standoff between Iran and the United States, which was often highlighted by President Jimmy Carter’s inability to enforce a strong hand against the Iranians. 10
What the next President of the United States must do is be willing to confront foreign policy issues with tenacity and grace, with grit as well as discretion. The War in Iraq must not be conducted in the haphazard manner that was the routine of the Bush Administration’s original post-invasion manner and critical mistakes like Paul Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi Army (which drove trained individuals to fight with the insurgency) are no longer a luxury we can afford11. The 44th President must understand that to acquiesce to political expediency and leave Iraq in its current shape and form would be a foreign policy blunder akin to our initial post-invasion strategy. Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Institute for Middle Eastern Affairs details why an immediate withdrawal as proposed by Obama could be considered disastrous; when brought to testify before Congress, Katzman explained that without the U.S. forces there to buoy the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki’s government, the Iraqi security forces, in their present condition, would inevitably fracture into their own militias and a coup would most likely occur which would set the stage not only for political instability but also allow a leader like Moktada Al-Sadr who supports Iran to take control of Iraq; thus increasing Iran’s sphere of influence. 13
The 44th President must begin his term by seeking to integrate the war in Iraq as a global issue. He should reach out to all Middle Eastern nations in order to dispel the alienation and ambivalence many of them experience in the field of American politics in the present day. He must present a case for the reasons we have for staying in Iraq not only to the American public but to the world. A tour of the Middle East akin to Madison’s tour of the United States during the Era of Good Feelings would be ideal, except it would be much more serious and critical to national security than Madison’s. 14 The us-against-them mentality of the Bush Administration should be discarded as inefficient and disingenuous and instead the next President should explain to the world that all the civilized nations in the world would suffer as a result of a terrorist victory. A speech to the United Nations delegation could begin a new era of diplomatic relations in which the United States does not act unilaterally but acts as one part of a tapestry of nations dedicated to eliminating terrorism and ensuring prosperity. In order to do this, the next President must demonstrate certain ideals in order for America to regain its prestige and trustworthiness to those nations in the Middle Eastern regions especially. This would include pressuring Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to end his steps towards dictatorship and stop limiting the rights of individuals in his country; this would be an act of contrition since the US has supported Musharraf’s regime in exchange for agreeing to fight Al-Qaeda in key regions of the Pakistani countryside. 15
Who is most likely to take the right steps to ensuring a concrete and precise foreign policy that would benefit America? John McCain, but he will not be the next President of the United States. McCain’s lifeblood during the primaries was the independent vote, but as he has emerged as the presumptive nominee, he has had to forego some aspects of his maverick persona in order to court the conservative base. Obama has much the same relationship with his base and independents, but has been able to veil his inexperience and the weakest parts of his agenda through his soaring rhetoric and seemingly genuine call for bipartisanship. Both candidates signal change for America and envision a new era for American politics but while McCain has a senate record for bipartisanship, he seems to be burdened by the albatross of Bush’s legacy – the war in Iraq and the tax cuts that McCain now supports may not be enough for Democrats to call McCain the “third-term Bush” but it does make it hard for him to coalesce the conservative base and the independent vote into a coalition that will be able to elect him into the office of the Presidency. As a result, it seems most likely that it Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Works Cited
1 Yoon, Robert. "McCain lags in fundraising, cuts staff." CNN Political Ticker. 02 July 2007. CNN. 13 Jun 2008.
2 "Jay's Treaty." Jay's Treaty. Archiving Early America. 13 Jun 2008
3 "The Marshall Plan." The Marshall Plan Rebuilding Europe. 00 May 2007. U.S. State Department. 13 Jun 2008.
4 " "Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique." Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique. 11 Nov 2000. Ministry Affairs for the People's Republic of China. 13 Jun 2008.
5 "The Recognition of the State of Israel: Documents." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. 13 Jun 2008.
6 Rosmaita, Gregory. "The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad." The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad. 1993. An American Exegesis. 13 Jun 2008.
7 Gross, Daniel. "The New New Deal." Roosevelt-era reforms are saving capitalism-again. 25 Mar 2008.
Slate. 15 Jun 2008.
8 "Biography of Martin Van Buren." Martin Van Buren. The White House. 13 Jun 2008.
9 "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - FAS Fact Sheets." USDA. Jan 2008. US Department
of Agriculture. 13 Jun 2008.
10 "Biography of Jimmy Carter." The White House. The White House. 14 Jun 2008
11 Zuckman, Jill. "Economy replacing war as top campaign issue." Politics and Government. 15 Dec 2007.
Seattle Times. 14 Jun 2008.
12 Gordon, Michael. "Fateful Choice on Iraq Army Bypassed Debate." New York Times 17 Mar 2008
15 Jun 2008.
13 "Statement of Kenneth Katzman." Congressional Research Service. 23 Jan 2008. Congressional
Research Institute. 15 Jun 2008.
14 "Era of Good Feeling." Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University . 15 Jun 2008
.
15 Bhadrakumar, M K. "Musharraf sidesteps US advice." Musharraf sidesteps US advice. 4 Nov 2007.
Rediff India Abroad; India as it happens. 15 Jun 2008.
Anyway, I really worked hard on it and I'm quite proud of it. I didn't want it to waste away somewhere, so here it is, immortialized on a blog page that is never read. :)
At this point in our nation’s illustrious history there are a multitude of pressing matters which plague the well-being and serenity of our nation’s present condition and at the same time threaten America’s future prosperity; the issues that are most integral and vital to securing a superior nation for our posterity if resolved effectively and competently include America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and how skillfully our government can employ diplomacy to defeat our enemies; the government must also display a concerted effort to tame the economic fluctuations which have begun to seriously impact the financial stability of our nation and cause widespread concern among America’s citizenry; the challenge of illegal immigration has become an issue so volatile that the position of now Republican nominee for the Presidency, John McCain, to support an immigration bill co-sponsored by Edward Kennedy caused such conservative outrage it nearly ended his campaign1; John McCain’s campaign recovered but the political fallout has driven other politicians from confronting a problem that costs the American people millions of dollars each year.
These challenges are not new within the context of American history or politics – the annals of American history are fraught with foreign policy crises which have been solved by tactful diplomacy and compromise; the legacy of diplomatic resolutions to foreign problems is a hallmark of America’s greatest triumphs – beginning with Jay’s Treaty under the Washington Administration that sparred the then young nation from being entrenched in the war between French and Britain, to the brilliant masterwork of the Marshall Plan2 that helped rebuild Europe after World War II while also persuading countries to side with America during the Cold War. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to America’s extended standoff with the Soviet Union, the greatest foreign policy achievements have been reached through speech rather than through force. In each of these of those cases, it took a strong executive who was able to able to balance popular opinion with the pragmatic policy necessary to protect and supplement American interests. Foreign policy agreements which have been recorded as triumphs in the annals of American history do not rest solely on the shoulders of a great and talented individual but decisions made by the President often allow these policy agreements to take place. Jay’s Treaty3 was viciously unpopular, but George Washington looked beyond public opinion and to the importance of keeping the country out of war. Opening diplomatic relations with China4 seemed tantamount to getting in bed with the enemy, but Nixon’s choice to do so allowed America to enjoy economic prosperity. Truman’s choice to recognize Israel as an independent nation was scorned by some but was responsible for contributing to the legitimacy of that nation’s very existence5.
The President’s influence is not limited to foreign policy issues of course; Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal initiative can be credited with bringing the U.S. out of the Great Depression6 and Washington’s decision to back Alexander Hamilton’s plan to create a Federal Bank had large implications on the young nation’s future7. A President’s indecision and bad judgment can also cause lasting heartache for America’s prosperity; President Van Buren is largely remembered for the economic panic which occurred under his watch and little else, for instance.8
This year foreign policy, economic, and domestic issues of critical importance to the country’s future will be placed on the President’s desk from day one. The 44th President shall be chosen for that office at one of the ripest moments for change that this country has ever been given. The question is, will he be up to the task?
If he is unable to deal effectively with our foreign policy issues and with our enemies abroad, it will be safe to say that he will be unable to become a celebrated President in our country’s history. Today, the economy has outstripped foreign policy issues like Iraq from the public consciousness but what the average citizen has forgotten is that with a globally interconnected world, foreign policy affects every part of our everyday life. 10 Foreign policy decisions affect the trade barriers and tariffs raised between countries and can have a severe impact on the prices of essential products. The North Atlantic Trade Agreement encouraged economic freedom and interconnectivity between Canada, the United States, and Mexico and despite the loss of jobs; many consider it to be a success9. Often, economic issues can be driven to correct themselves. National security matters, however, rarely sort themselves out without decisive action. An example of how the malaise of a President’s foreign policy can affect America’s prestige would be the year-long hostage standoff between Iran and the United States, which was often highlighted by President Jimmy Carter’s inability to enforce a strong hand against the Iranians. 10
What the next President of the United States must do is be willing to confront foreign policy issues with tenacity and grace, with grit as well as discretion. The War in Iraq must not be conducted in the haphazard manner that was the routine of the Bush Administration’s original post-invasion manner and critical mistakes like Paul Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi Army (which drove trained individuals to fight with the insurgency) are no longer a luxury we can afford11. The 44th President must understand that to acquiesce to political expediency and leave Iraq in its current shape and form would be a foreign policy blunder akin to our initial post-invasion strategy. Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Institute for Middle Eastern Affairs details why an immediate withdrawal as proposed by Obama could be considered disastrous; when brought to testify before Congress, Katzman explained that without the U.S. forces there to buoy the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki’s government, the Iraqi security forces, in their present condition, would inevitably fracture into their own militias and a coup would most likely occur which would set the stage not only for political instability but also allow a leader like Moktada Al-Sadr who supports Iran to take control of Iraq; thus increasing Iran’s sphere of influence. 13
The 44th President must begin his term by seeking to integrate the war in Iraq as a global issue. He should reach out to all Middle Eastern nations in order to dispel the alienation and ambivalence many of them experience in the field of American politics in the present day. He must present a case for the reasons we have for staying in Iraq not only to the American public but to the world. A tour of the Middle East akin to Madison’s tour of the United States during the Era of Good Feelings would be ideal, except it would be much more serious and critical to national security than Madison’s. 14 The us-against-them mentality of the Bush Administration should be discarded as inefficient and disingenuous and instead the next President should explain to the world that all the civilized nations in the world would suffer as a result of a terrorist victory. A speech to the United Nations delegation could begin a new era of diplomatic relations in which the United States does not act unilaterally but acts as one part of a tapestry of nations dedicated to eliminating terrorism and ensuring prosperity. In order to do this, the next President must demonstrate certain ideals in order for America to regain its prestige and trustworthiness to those nations in the Middle Eastern regions especially. This would include pressuring Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to end his steps towards dictatorship and stop limiting the rights of individuals in his country; this would be an act of contrition since the US has supported Musharraf’s regime in exchange for agreeing to fight Al-Qaeda in key regions of the Pakistani countryside. 15
Who is most likely to take the right steps to ensuring a concrete and precise foreign policy that would benefit America? John McCain, but he will not be the next President of the United States. McCain’s lifeblood during the primaries was the independent vote, but as he has emerged as the presumptive nominee, he has had to forego some aspects of his maverick persona in order to court the conservative base. Obama has much the same relationship with his base and independents, but has been able to veil his inexperience and the weakest parts of his agenda through his soaring rhetoric and seemingly genuine call for bipartisanship. Both candidates signal change for America and envision a new era for American politics but while McCain has a senate record for bipartisanship, he seems to be burdened by the albatross of Bush’s legacy – the war in Iraq and the tax cuts that McCain now supports may not be enough for Democrats to call McCain the “third-term Bush” but it does make it hard for him to coalesce the conservative base and the independent vote into a coalition that will be able to elect him into the office of the Presidency. As a result, it seems most likely that it Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Works Cited
1 Yoon, Robert. "McCain lags in fundraising, cuts staff." CNN Political Ticker. 02 July 2007. CNN. 13 Jun 2008
2 "Jay's Treaty." Jay's Treaty. Archiving Early America. 13 Jun 2008
3 "The Marshall Plan." The Marshall Plan Rebuilding Europe. 00 May 2007. U.S. State Department. 13 Jun 2008
4 " "Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique." Nixon's China's Visit and "Sino-U.S. Communique. 11 Nov 2000. Ministry Affairs for the People's Republic of China. 13 Jun 2008
5 "The Recognition of the State of Israel: Documents." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. 13 Jun 2008
6 Rosmaita, Gregory. "The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad." The Four Freedoms, At Home and Abroad. 1993. An American Exegesis. 13 Jun 2008
7 Gross, Daniel. "The New New Deal." Roosevelt-era reforms are saving capitalism-again. 25 Mar 2008.
Slate. 15 Jun 2008
8 "Biography of Martin Van Buren." Martin Van Buren. The White House. 13 Jun 2008
9 "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) - FAS Fact Sheets." USDA. Jan 2008. US Department
of Agriculture. 13 Jun 2008
10 "Biography of Jimmy Carter." The White House. The White House. 14 Jun 2008
11 Zuckman, Jill. "Economy replacing war as top campaign issue." Politics and Government. 15 Dec 2007.
Seattle Times. 14 Jun 2008
12 Gordon, Michael. "Fateful Choice on Iraq Army Bypassed Debate." New York Times 17 Mar 2008
15 Jun 2008
13 "Statement of Kenneth Katzman." Congressional Research Service. 23 Jan 2008. Congressional
Research Institute. 15 Jun 2008
14 "Era of Good Feeling." Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University . 15 Jun 2008
15 Bhadrakumar, M K. "Musharraf sidesteps US advice." Musharraf sidesteps US advice. 4 Nov 2007.
Rediff India Abroad; India as it happens. 15 Jun 2008
Justin Nichols
The Collin County Observor outlines the whole torrid affair.
I voted for Justin Nichols after meeting him at my college. I believe he was the only person I voted for who didn't win and was not the most experienced person on the ballot. His opponent beat him on sheer credentials, but I went out on a limb. He seemed like a good guy and a person worthy of investing a vote based on his leadership qualities and great work in his position.
Both he and Phyllis Cole were the only people I voted for who lost. I've heard murmurings that it could have been a result of those e-mails slandering Cole about hiring "a gay person".
The Republican party has a lot going for it, but one thing it cannot lose is the lifeblood of any political party and of any movement; it's burgeoning stars from the next generation of politically-motivated people who believe in conservative principles.
No one won in this scenario. Nto Texas, not the Republican party, and certainly not Collin County.
I voted for Justin Nichols after meeting him at my college. I believe he was the only person I voted for who didn't win and was not the most experienced person on the ballot. His opponent beat him on sheer credentials, but I went out on a limb. He seemed like a good guy and a person worthy of investing a vote based on his leadership qualities and great work in his position.
Both he and Phyllis Cole were the only people I voted for who lost. I've heard murmurings that it could have been a result of those e-mails slandering Cole about hiring "a gay person".
The Republican party has a lot going for it, but one thing it cannot lose is the lifeblood of any political party and of any movement; it's burgeoning stars from the next generation of politically-motivated people who believe in conservative principles.
No one won in this scenario. Nto Texas, not the Republican party, and certainly not Collin County.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
What Happened
There will be those who will tell you that What Happened is another Bush Basher. There will be those who will dismiss it as the work of a disgruntled employee who's sticking it the the President. There will be those who will tell you that this book is about the campaign formulation that convinced the American public to enter Iraq.
All these diminish the importance of the work, what McClellan has uncovered is a subject that Keith Olbermann and even the people in Congress rarely focus on. What McClellan articulates is an odious culture of deception that is note the highlight of the Bush Administrion but of Washington itself. He bashes the Clinton White House a great deal and perhaps with more condemnation than with the Bush White House. There seems to be more regret than fire and brimstone when it comes to his recollections of the failures of the Bush Administraiton.
The Permanent Campaign mentality of Washington is even more dangerous because whether Obama or McCain wins, that mentality will still be in place. The mentality that even after the Presidency is won, everything must be done in anticipation of the next campaign to stay in office or in relation of keeping the party in power. This undermines the very fabric and purpose of the Presidency and the government itself. People are elected to these offices to serve the public not to work in tandem with others so they can get reelected or they can keep their party in power. Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to believe that these people aren't politicians, but according to McClellan, the integrity of the government itself had been compromised by a focus on maintaining power rather than maintaining a stable that progressed during a President's tenure.
We need someone who's experienced enough to resist this kind of partisanship and shape a Presidency that will drive Congress to act in the best interest of America rather than the best interest of a political party. Obama is more like Bush than he'd care to admit; he's as inexperienced as Bush was considered to be back in 2000; don't ask me though, I was too young to know.
The point is, only someone like John McCain would know how to resist this kind of temptation to fall into partisan politics. Obama is more inexpereinced than Bush was when he began the Presidency; how could he possibly solidify any true amount of change if he could so easily fall prety to the pitfalls that McClellan has outlined?
Really though, no matter who attains the Presidency, they must rise above this permanent campaign mentality. We know what happened. We know the cause. Now let's do something different.
Thank you, Mr. McClellan.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Still Tired
Very, very tired in fact. Since I've been back, things have only gotten harder. College and work have coalesced into a burden that's turning out to be back-breaking. Anyone who reads this and I'm fairly certain that number is about equal to zero should know that my posts will be fairly erratic until this three-class summer palooza to get my Associate's Degree is over.
Until then, Senators Dan Patrick, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and everyone who attended are awesome. Including Wayne, if he ever reads this, although no doubt, that man has better things to do than read a college guy's blog. Senator Dan Patrick received my letter of thanks for that awesome radio stint I was allowed to do. I even got a call back from secretary! Yeah, it was awesome.
But since I'm here, I might as well talk a bit about politics. Let's do a snippet; that GI bill that Senator McCain and Cornyn derided in favor of their own, less generous version (albeit, they had credible reasons) has been signed into law as of, what, today? I got a letter back from Senator Cornyn about the bill, which I was very happy about. Well, it was an e-mail, which doesn't have the same distinct coolness but it was still pretty awesome. It was so cool that it almost made me forget that I didn't support their version of the bill...only almost. One of the added benefits of this bill is the transferability of GI benefits; at least, I could have sworn Dana Perino mentioning that in her press briefing today. If that's true, then maybe I could actually benefit (even more, to be frank) from Dad's service.
Now, for more substantive talk; the FISA bill has been passed, the Heller case has been passed as well. A lot of things have happened, in short. The FISA bill peaks my interest, not that I'm not entranced by the Supreme Court descison, but it went the way I was expecting it to. I honestly didn't expect the Court to uphold the ban on handguns. It is startling that the Supreme Court, rather than issuing a decision that was ambiguous or shirking away from going "too far" finally stated unequivcally that we as individuals have a right to gun.
Yes. I could have already told you that. Courts like to buy their time. It's as if the Wild West didn't already demonstrate that folks have a right
I jest somewhat, but it's an important, nay, revolutionary decision. The beauty of the decision is that it is truly pragmatic in it's view of gun control. It gave us the right to have a gun and sealed it as an individual right but realized that that's not an excuse to carry around assault weapons.
So..now I'm tired again, but I've got plenty more to say tomorrow.
Until then, Senators Dan Patrick, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and everyone who attended are awesome. Including Wayne, if he ever reads this, although no doubt, that man has better things to do than read a college guy's blog. Senator Dan Patrick received my letter of thanks for that awesome radio stint I was allowed to do. I even got a call back from secretary! Yeah, it was awesome.
But since I'm here, I might as well talk a bit about politics. Let's do a snippet; that GI bill that Senator McCain and Cornyn derided in favor of their own, less generous version (albeit, they had credible reasons) has been signed into law as of, what, today? I got a letter back from Senator Cornyn about the bill, which I was very happy about. Well, it was an e-mail, which doesn't have the same distinct coolness but it was still pretty awesome. It was so cool that it almost made me forget that I didn't support their version of the bill...only almost. One of the added benefits of this bill is the transferability of GI benefits; at least, I could have sworn Dana Perino mentioning that in her press briefing today. If that's true, then maybe I could actually benefit (even more, to be frank) from Dad's service.
Now, for more substantive talk; the FISA bill has been passed, the Heller case has been passed as well. A lot of things have happened, in short. The FISA bill peaks my interest, not that I'm not entranced by the Supreme Court descison, but it went the way I was expecting it to. I honestly didn't expect the Court to uphold the ban on handguns. It is startling that the Supreme Court, rather than issuing a decision that was ambiguous or shirking away from going "too far" finally stated unequivcally that we as individuals have a right to gun.
Yes. I could have already told you that. Courts like to buy their time. It's as if the Wild West didn't already demonstrate that folks have a right
I jest somewhat, but it's an important, nay, revolutionary decision. The beauty of the decision is that it is truly pragmatic in it's view of gun control. It gave us the right to have a gun and sealed it as an individual right but realized that that's not an excuse to carry around assault weapons.
So..now I'm tired again, but I've got plenty more to say tomorrow.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Be Good
Ah, I'm tired but content. The convention was certainly an experience. I also discovered that Houston is best city in all of the state of Texas, but I will have to consolidate my thoughts and words at another date to explain how I discovered this fact in an eloquent fashion; I have another scholarship I have to tend to so this will have to be short - although I might edit it later.
Of all the things I learned during the Convention one presiding philosophy takes precedence and defines my modified outlook on the Republican party; the true conservative officials of the as well as those grassroot supporters all want one simple thing which is perhaps not so easy to achieve - a good government.
Google has a motto that serves as the antithesis to the corporate legacy of corruption immortalized by scandals wrought by Enron and Worldcom; Be Good. Not do good, but be good. I'm not calling for a good government that doesn't do anything but I'm recognizing that the best way to complete an action in a competent fashion is to be good at it. If the government is dysfunctional to begin with it is nearly impossible for it to provide the people with the services it was designed to distribute amongst the people. Being good at what you do is a preresquite for creating good things. If one reads the writings of Aristotle and other philosophers concerning what is "good" in the aspect of actions, then you find the same sentiment being echoed. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when the government is not focused on being good but just on doing; bureaucratic fallout hinders real progress from being achieved and precious lives can be lost.
The government too often tries to do everything and the Democrats seem to believe that having the government do everything for the citizens of America is a healthy proposition. As a conservative, I'm proud to say that I don't want the government to be involved in every iota of my life. This doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a place in our lives; we need border security, we need national security, we need equal protection under the laws (at times, federal law must intercede in order to make certain that this occurs when state law fails; Truman's response to the Little Rock Nine incident for example), we need government intervention in the financial sector at times as well.
However, the Democrats have a disheveled view; to them, the government must tell us that we must all have healthcare and have ours provided by the government. Healthcare is important, but it is the belief that we must be forced to do so that worries me. A competent and compassionate government does not mean an inflated government that believes it knows better than the people who allow it to exist.
From Micheal Williams to Dale Wainwright, to Mike Huckabee to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, this is the principle of republicanism I sensed; that as American individuals we have control over our destinies and the right to be protected by our government not dogged or harrassed by it. We have the right to demand that our government be good and not be so focused on doing good in a self-righteous fashion. Government must be chained by the good sense of the people so it does not run amok.
As George Washington stated, government is like fire; I'll admit to not remembering the full quote exactly, but I remember reading it and coming to the conclusion that government can be both an asset and a detriment to our liberties. We cannot bow to the siren song of larger government - we must instead confront issues like social security and healthcare with a pragmatic view, one which doesn't answer each and every problem with a new department of the government or, for conservatives, leaving it up to the market to fix in some occassions. One of the biggest examples to me is social security, which will be bankrupt and yet Democrats wish to cash the check and are disturbed when the President tries to find a solution in lieu of a better option. It's as if they prefer inaction to action if they don't come up with the idea.
It's quite perplexing.
Of all the things I learned during the Convention one presiding philosophy takes precedence and defines my modified outlook on the Republican party; the true conservative officials of the as well as those grassroot supporters all want one simple thing which is perhaps not so easy to achieve - a good government.
Google has a motto that serves as the antithesis to the corporate legacy of corruption immortalized by scandals wrought by Enron and Worldcom; Be Good. Not do good, but be good. I'm not calling for a good government that doesn't do anything but I'm recognizing that the best way to complete an action in a competent fashion is to be good at it. If the government is dysfunctional to begin with it is nearly impossible for it to provide the people with the services it was designed to distribute amongst the people. Being good at what you do is a preresquite for creating good things. If one reads the writings of Aristotle and other philosophers concerning what is "good" in the aspect of actions, then you find the same sentiment being echoed. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when the government is not focused on being good but just on doing; bureaucratic fallout hinders real progress from being achieved and precious lives can be lost.
The government too often tries to do everything and the Democrats seem to believe that having the government do everything for the citizens of America is a healthy proposition. As a conservative, I'm proud to say that I don't want the government to be involved in every iota of my life. This doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a place in our lives; we need border security, we need national security, we need equal protection under the laws (at times, federal law must intercede in order to make certain that this occurs when state law fails; Truman's response to the Little Rock Nine incident for example), we need government intervention in the financial sector at times as well.
However, the Democrats have a disheveled view; to them, the government must tell us that we must all have healthcare and have ours provided by the government. Healthcare is important, but it is the belief that we must be forced to do so that worries me. A competent and compassionate government does not mean an inflated government that believes it knows better than the people who allow it to exist.
From Micheal Williams to Dale Wainwright, to Mike Huckabee to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, this is the principle of republicanism I sensed; that as American individuals we have control over our destinies and the right to be protected by our government not dogged or harrassed by it. We have the right to demand that our government be good and not be so focused on doing good in a self-righteous fashion. Government must be chained by the good sense of the people so it does not run amok.
As George Washington stated, government is like fire; I'll admit to not remembering the full quote exactly, but I remember reading it and coming to the conclusion that government can be both an asset and a detriment to our liberties. We cannot bow to the siren song of larger government - we must instead confront issues like social security and healthcare with a pragmatic view, one which doesn't answer each and every problem with a new department of the government or, for conservatives, leaving it up to the market to fix in some occassions. One of the biggest examples to me is social security, which will be bankrupt and yet Democrats wish to cash the check and are disturbed when the President tries to find a solution in lieu of a better option. It's as if they prefer inaction to action if they don't come up with the idea.
It's quite perplexing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)