The Flash plugin is required to view this content. Please click here to download the plugin.

Archive for February, 2008

Feb 29 2008

Profile Image of Stephen
Stephen

“I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica— conservative Republican”

Filed under Mitt Romney

Political Punch

Click to watch the video (its pretty funny)

February 2008
McCain’s ‘Liberal’ Misstep
February 28, 2008 8:16

cf

Photo(Phoenix About)

At a town hall meeting in Richardson, Texas, Thursday afternoon, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., made a gaffe that will surely provide myriad conservative radio talk show hosts confirmation of their views, by accidentally calling himself a liberal.

“I will conduct a respectful debate,” McCain told the crowd at Texas Instruments, per ABC News’ Bret Hovell. “Now, it will be spirited because there are stark differences. I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica— conservative Republican,” he said, catching himself. “Hello?” he said as the crowd laughed. “Easy there.”

Take two: “Let me say this: I am a proud conservative Republican and both of my possible or likely opponents today are liberal Democrats!”

Cue Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, et al.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/mccains-liberal.html

21 responses so far

Feb 29 2008

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

McCain Woes Keep Huckabee In Race

Sen. McCain may have inadvertently painted himself into a corner with his “campaign finance reform” tinkering. It appears that he is between the proverbial rock and a hard place when it comes to his attempt to opt out of the public campaign finance system and to rely on his own fund raising. I don’t claim to know how all this will eventually work itself out, but I continue to believe that McCain is very vulnerable in this campaign. If the FEC or the courts eventually rule that McCain has to stay in the publicly funded system and he is already at his spending limits, how does he mount a general election challenge to Barack Obama who is floating on an ocean of cash?

~~John Cronin~~

FREE REPUBLIC

Mike Huckabee said today he’s staying in the Republican presidential race because Sen. John McCain might have run afoul of the Federal Election Commission and be unable to campaign for much of the rest of this year…

“He wrote these laws,” the former Arkansas governor said, adding they were “one of the worst things to happen to American politics.”

“It may very well be that the law he pushed comes back to bite him.”

At issue is Mr. McCain’s request last summer to take part in the federal matching funds program for the primary election and his request earlier this month to withdraw from it.

If forced to remain in the public financing system, Mr. McCain would be tied to strict spending limits that he is already approaching. He would essentially have to shut his campaign down until after the nominating convention in September, which could make Mr. Huckabee a more attractive general election candidate.

Mr. Huckabee, who has not applied for public funds, would have no such restriction…

The Democratic National Committee has filed a challenge, and the FEC chairman has said he wants more information on whether Mr. McCain has already received anything of value from his participation in the program. That could include securing a bank loan on the promise of government funds or, the DNC says, it could also include securing a place on the ballots in some states without having to gather signatures.

The McCain campaign has asserted a constitutional right to withdraw from the system…

Complicating Mr. McCain’s path is the fact that the FEC can’t muster a quorum and can’t rule on his case. Mr. McCain says that’s not needed and that he can withdraw unilaterally, but former FEC commissioners say that is not a settled question.

13 responses so far

Feb 29 2008

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

AMERICA’S NEXT PRESIDENT?

Filed under 2008, Barack Obama


Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials

5 responses so far

Feb 28 2008

Profile Image of Mike Laub
Mike Laub

Mitt Romney has said that jihadism is this century’s nightmare. What do you think?

Filed under Mitt Romney

Reasons to disagree

  1. More people die from alcohol than terrorism. 85,000 people die each year because of alcohol Link
    1. 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
    2. 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
    3. 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
    4. 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
    5. 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
    6. 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
    7. 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
    8. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
    9. 100,000 deaths. That’s more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year.
  2. An aggressive China that is willing to kill thousands of people in order to expand, would be this century’s nightmare.


Reasons to agree

  1. Jihadist are the only people who would use a nuclear weapon.
  2. A nuclear weapon would destroy men, women, children. It would destroy homes, and make property un-usable for thousands of years.
  3. Some of the people who die from Alcohol, are just killing themselves. Those who would be killed from a nuclear bomb, would be mostly innocent.
  4. There can be more than one nightmare. China could go bad, but Jihadism is more likely to.
  5. Jihadist could start a war with Pakistan.
  6. Jihadist are killing and displacing thousands in Africa.
  7. Jihadist have exploded transportation in the United States, Spain, and England.
  8. Jihadist are trying to take over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. They are a significant force in Syria.
  9. Many Jihadist deny the Holocaust.
  10. Many Jihadist want to destroy Israel.
  11. There is no force on the planet, not communism or anything else, that unifies people with so much hatred as Jihadism.

8 responses so far

Feb 27 2008

Profile Image of Stephen
Stephen

Buckley and Conservatism

Filed under Mitt Romney

William F. Buckley Jr., champion of conservatism, dies at 82
By Douglas Martin Published: February 27, 2008
International Herald Tribune

u

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PM0NQWRAL._AA240_.jpg

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Connecticut

Buckley, 82, suffered from diabetes and emphysema, his son Christopher said, although the exact cause of death was not immediately known. He was found at his desk in the study of his home, his son said. “He might have been working on a column,” Buckley said.

Buckley’s winningly capricious personality, replete with ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare with an anteater’s, hosted one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine, “National Review.”

He also found time to write at least 45 books, ranging from sailing odysseys to spy novels to celebrations of his own dashing daily life, and edit five more. He published a book-length history of the magazine in 2007.

The more than 4.5 million words of his 5,600 biweekly newspaper columns, “On the Right,” would fill 45 more medium-sized books.

To Buckley’s enormous delight, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the historian, termed him “the scourge of liberalism.”

In remarks at National Review’s 30th anniversary in 1985, President Ronald Reagan joked that he picked up his first issue of the magazine in a plain brown wrapper and still anxiously awaited his biweekly edition — “without the wrapper.”

“You didn’t just part the Red Sea — you rolled it back, dried it up and left exposed, for all the world to see, the naked desert that is statism,” Reagan said.

“And then, as if that weren’t enough,” the president continued, “you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed, the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom.”

The liberal advance had begun with the New Deal, and so accelerated in the next generation that Lionel Trilling, one of America’s leading intellectuals, wrote in 1950: “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

Buckley declared war on this liberal order, beginning with his blistering assault on Yale as a traitorous den of atheistic collectivism immediately after his graduation (with honors) from the university.

“All great biblical stories begin with Genesis,” George Will wrote in the National Review in 1980. “And before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind, and the spark in 1980 has become a conflagration.”

Buckley weaved the tapestry of what became the new American conservatism from libertarian writers like Max Eastman, free market economists like Milton Friedman, traditionalist scholars like Russell Kirk and anti-Communist writers like Whittaker Chambers. But the persuasiveness of his argument hinged not on these perhaps arcane sources, but on his own tightly argued case for a conservatism based on the national interest and a higher morality.

His most receptive audience became young conservatives first energized by Barry Goldwater’s emergence at the Republican convention in 1960 as the rightist alternative to Nixon. Some met in Sept., 1960, at Buckley’s Connecticut estate to form Young Americans for Freedom. Their numbers — and influence — grew.

Nicholas Lemann observed in Washington Monthly in 1988 that during the Reagan administration “the 5,000 middle-level officials, journalists and policy intellectuals that it takes to run a government” were “deeply influenced by Buckley’s example.” He suggested that neither moderate Washington insiders nor “Ed Meese-style provincial conservatives” could have pulled off the Reagan tax cut and other reforms.

Speaking of the true believers, Lemann continued, “Some of these people had been personally groomed by Buckley, and most of the rest saw him as a role model.”

Buckley rose to prominence with a generation of talented writers fascinated by political themes, names like Mailer, Capote, Vidal, Styron and Baldwin. Like the others, he attracted controversy like a magnet. Even conservatives — from members of the John Birch Society to disciples of conservative author Ayn Rand to George Wallace to moderate Republicans — frequently pounced on him.

Many of varied political stripes came to see his life as something of an art form — from racing through city streets on a motorcycle to a quixotic campaign for mayor of New York in 1965 to startling opinions like favoring the decriminalization of marijuana. He was often described as liberals’ favorite conservative, particularly after suavely hosting an adaptation of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead Revisited” on public television in 1982.

Norman Mailer may indeed have dismissed Buckley as a “second-rate intellect incapable of entertaining two serious thoughts in a row,” but he could not help admiring his stage presence.

“No other act can project simultaneous hints that he is in the act of playing Commodore of the Yacht Club, Joseph Goebbels, Robert Mitchum, Maverick, Savonarola, the nice prep school kid next door, and the snows of yesteryear,” Mailer said in an interview with Harpers in 1967.

Buckley’s vocabulary, sparkling with phrases from distant eras and described in newspaper and magazine profiles as sesquipedalian (characterized by the use of long words) became the stuff of legend. Less kind commentators called him “pleonastic” (use of more words than necessary).

And, inescapably, there was that aurora of pure mischief. In 1985, David Remnick, writing in The Washington Post, said, “He has the eyes of a child who has just displayed a horrid use for the microwave oven and the family cat.”

The elder Buckley made a fortune in the oil fields of Mexico, and educated his children with personal tutors at Great Elm, the family estate in Sharon, Connecticut They also attended exclusive Roman Catholic schools in England and France.

Young William absorbed his family’s conservatism along with its deep Catholicism. At 6, he wrote the King of England demanding he repay his country’s war debt. At 14, he followed his brothers to the Millbrook School, a preparatory school 15 miles across the New York state line from Sharon.

In his spare time at Millbrook, young Bill typed schoolmates’ papers for them, charging $1 a paper, with a 25-cent surcharge for correcting the grammar.

He did not neglect politics, showing up uninvited to a faculty meeting to complain about a teacher abridging his right to free speech and ardently opposing United States’ involvement in World War II. His father wrote him to suggest he “learn to be more moderate in the expression of your views.”

He graduated from Millbrook in 1943, then spent a half a year at the University of Mexico studying Spanish, which had been his first language. He served in the army from 1944 to 1946, and managed to make second lieutenant after first putting colleagues off with his mannerisms.

“I think the army experience did something to Bill,” his sister, Patricia, told Judis. “He got to understand people more.”

Buckley then entered Yale where he studied political science, economics and history; established himself as a fearsome debater; was elected chairman of the Yale Daily News, and joined Skull and Bones, the most prestigious secret society.

As a senior, he was given the honor of delivering the speech for Yale’s Alumni Day celebration, but was replaced after the university’s administration objected to his strong attacks on the university. He responded by writing his critique in the book that brought him to national attention, in part because he gave the publisher, Regnery, $10,000 to advertise it.

Published in 1951, “God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom,’” charged the powers at Yale with having an atheistic and collectivist bent and called for the firing of faculty members who advocated values not in accord with those that the institution should be upholding — which was to say, his own.

Among the avalanche of negative reviews, the one in Atlantic by McGeorge Bundy, a Yale graduate, was conspicuous. He found the book “dishonest in its use of facts, false in its theory, and a discredit to its author.”

But Peter Viereck, writing in The New York Times Sunday Book Review viewed the book as “a necessary counterbalance.”

After a year in the Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico City (his case officer was Howard Hunt, who went on to win celebrity for his part in the Watergate break-in), Buckley went to work for the American Mercury magazine, but resigned after spotting anti-Semitic tendencies in the magazine.

Over the next few years, Buckley worked as a freelance writer and lecturer, and wrote a second book with L. Brent Bozell, his brother-in-law. Published in 1954, “McCarthy and His Enemies” was a sturdy defense of the senator from Wisconsin who was then in the throes of his campaign against communists, liberals and the Democratic Party.

In 1955, Buckley started National Review as voice for “the disciples of truth, who defend the organic moral order” with a $100,000 gift from his father. The first issue, which came out in November, claimed the publication “stands athwart history yelling Stop.”

It proved it by lining up squarely behind Southern segregationists, saying blacks should be denied the vote. After some conservatives objected, Buckley suggested instead that both uneducated whites and blacks should not be allowed to vote.

Buckley did not accord automatic support to Republicans, starting with Eisenhower’s campaign for re-election in 1956. National Review’s tepid endorsement: “We prefer Ike.”

Along with offering a forum to big-gun conservatives like Russell Kirk, James Burnham and Robert Nisbet, National Review cultivated the career of several younger writers, including Garry Wills, Joan Didion and John Leonard, who would shake off the conservative attachment and go their leftward ways.

National Review also helped define the conservative movement by isolating cranks from Buckley’s chosen mainstream.

“Bill was responsible or rejecting the John Birch Society and the other kooks who passed off anti-Semitism or some such as conservatism,” Hugh Kenner, a biographer of Ezra Pound and a frequent contributor to National Review told The Washington Post. “Without Bill — if he had decided to become an academic or a businessman or something else — without him, there probably would be no respectable conservative movement in this country.”

Buckley’s personal visibility was magnified by his “Firing Line” program which ran from 1966 to 1999. First carried on WOR-TV and then on the Public Broadcasting Service, it became the longest running show hosted by a single host — beating out Johnny Carson by three years. He led the conservative team in 1,504 debates on topics like “Resolved: The women’s movement has been disastrous.”

There were exchanges on foreign policy with the likes of Norman Thomas; feminism with Germaine Greer and race relations with James Baldwin. Not a few viewers thought Buckley’s toothy grin before he scored a point resembled nothing so much as a switchblade.

To New York City politician Mark Green, he purred, “You’ve been on the show close to 100 times over the years. Tell me, Mark, have you learned anything yet.”

But Harold Macmillan, former prime minister of Britain, flummoxed the master. “Isn’t this show over yet?” he asked.

At age 50, Buckley added two pursuits to his repertoire — he took up the harpsichord and became novelist. Some 10 of the novels are spy tales starring Blackford Oakes, who fights for the American way and bedded the Queen of England in the first book.

Others of his books included a historical novel with Elvis Presley as a significant character, another starring Fidel Castro, a reasoned critique of anti-Semitism, and journals that more than succeeded dramatizing a life of taste and wealth — his own. For example, in “Cruising Speed: A Documentary,” published in 1971, he discussed the kind of meals he liked to eat.

“Rawle could give us anything, beginning with lobster Newburgh and ending with Baked Alaska,” he wrote. “We settle on a fish chowder, of which he is surely the supreme practitioner, and cheese and bacon sandwiches, grilled, with a most prickly Riesling picked up at St. Barts for peanuts,” he wrote.

Buckley’s spirit of fun was apparent in his 1965 campaign for mayor of New York on the ticket of the Conservative Party. When asked what he would do if he won, he answered, “Demand a recount.” He got 13.4 percent of the vote.

For Murray Kempton, one of his many friends on the left, the Buckley press conference style called up “an Edwardian resident commissioner reading aloud the 39 articles of the Anglican establishment to a conscript of assembled Zulus.”

Unlike his brother James who served as a United States senator from New York, Buckley generally avoided official government posts. He did serve from 1969 to 1972 as a presidential appointee to the National Advisory Commission on Information, and as a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations in 1973.

The merits of the argument aside, Buckley irrevocably proved that his brand of candor did not lend itself to public life when an Op-Ed article he wrote for The New York Times offered a partial cure for the AIDS epidemic: “Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm to prevent common needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of homosexuals,” he wrote.

In his last years, as honors like the Presidential Medal of Freedom came his way, Buckley gradually loosened his grip on his intellectual empire. In 1998, he ended his frenetic schedule of public speeches (some 70 a year over 40 years, he once estimated). In 1999, he stopped “Firing Line,” and in 2004, he relinquished his voting stock in National Review. He wrote his last spy novel the 11th in his series), sold his sailboat and stopped playing the harpsichord publicly.

But he began a new historical novel and kept up his columns, including one on the “bewitching power” of “The Sopranos” television series. He commanded wide attention by criticizing the Iraq war as a failure.

On April 15, 2007, his wife, the former Patricia Alden Austin Taylor, who had carved out a formidable reputation as a socialite and philanthropist but considered her role as a homemaker, mother and wife most important, died. Mr. and Mrs. Buckley called each other “Ducky.”

He is survived by his son, Christopher, of Washington, D.C.; his sisters Priscilla Buckley, of Sharon, Connecticut, Patricia Buckley Bozell, of Washington, D.C., and Carol Buckley, of Columbia, South Carolina; his brothers James L., of Sharon, and F. Reid, of Camden, South Carolina, a granddaughter and a grandson

In the end it was Buckley’s graceful, often self-deprecating wit that endeared him to others. In his spy novel “Who’s on First,” he described the possible impact of his National Review through his character Boris Bolgin.

” ‘Do you ever read the National Review, Jozsef?’ asks Boris Bolgin, the chief of KGB counter intelligence for Western Europe, ‘it is edited by this young bourgeois fanatic.’ “

8 responses so far

Feb 27 2008

Profile Image of Stephen
Stephen

Mitt Romney on W.F. Buckley

Filed under Mitt Romney

From Mitt Romney: “William F. Buckley was a giant of conservative thought and action throughout his life. He taught, challenged, and inspired three generations of conservative thinkers. Mr. Buckley demonstrated that ideas are powerful things and have the capacity to change the world. The conservative ideas he so forcefully and eloquently championed certainly changed America for the better, and for that we are eternally grateful. William F. Buckley and his family are in our prayers today.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/ K. Lopez

One response so far

Feb 27 2008

Profile Image of Stephen
Stephen

William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008)

Filed under Mitt Romney

William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008) [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

National Review Online

o
(amuversial image)

I’m devastated to report that our dear friend, mentor, leader, and founder William F. Buckley Jr., died this morning in his study in Stamford, Connecticut.

He died while at work; if he had been given a choice on how to depart this world, I suspect that would have been exactly it. At home, still devoted to the war of ideas.
As you might expect, we’ll have much more to say here and in NR in the coming days and weeks and months. For now: Thank you, Bill. God bless you, now with your dear Pat. Our deepest condolences to Christopher and the rest of the Buckley family. And our fervent prayer that we continue to do WFB’s life’s work justice.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE4NGRlOGM1NmYxYjdmNjk1MjliOTE2MTYxOWZkZjc=

hu

Feb 27, 11:47 AM (ET)

By HILLEL ITALIE

(AP) William F. Buckley, Jr. arrives at Washington National Cathedral to attend the funeral service for…
Full Image

NEW YORK (AP) - William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right’s post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82.

His assistant Linda Bridges said Buckley was found dead by his cook at his home in Stamford, Conn. The cause of death was unknown, but he had been ill with emphysema, she said.

Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of “Firing Line,” harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor’s race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.

Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent’s discomfort with wide-eyed glee.

“I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition,” he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. “I asked myself the other day, ‘Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?’ I couldn’t think of anyone.”

Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down “Firing Line” after a 23-year run, when guests ranged from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. “You’ve got to end sometime and I’d just as soon not die onstage,” he told the audience.

“For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television,” fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ended. “He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement.”

Fifty years earlier, few could have imagined such a triumph. Conservatives had been marginalized by a generation of discredited stands - from opposing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to the isolationism which preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Liberals so dominated intellectual thought that the critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were “no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop’ at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it.” Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.

Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn’t (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).

“I was very fond of him,” Didion said Wednesday. “Everyone was, even if they didn’t agree with him.”

Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.

His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist (”Thank You for Smoking”).
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2P9PG0.html

2 responses so far

Feb 27 2008

Profile Image of Mark
Mark

Either Rice or Romney would rock

Filed under Mitt Romney

I must confess that Mitt was not my first. When I first began to look at 2008 candidates back in late 2006, it was not Mitt Romney but Condoleezza Rice that caught my eye and received my first 2008 campaign donation. Now, with John McCain as the somewhat lackluster (to we conservatives, anyway) Republican standard bearer, either Condi or Mitt look like tantalizing ticket mates for McCain.

 

Nicholas von Hoffman made a good pitch for Condi in The Nation recently, saying she is the VP candidate that could give the Democrats “indescribable angst” during the general campaign.

What makes Rice such a tempting pick? Of course one thing is that she is “the greatest two-for in GOP history,” as von Hoffman puts it, a black female who would conveniently counterbalance either or both Democratic candidates. She “deprives the Democrats of the we-are-more-diverse-than-thou argument,” as well as opening doors into both black and female voting blocks and allowing McCain to wage a stronger offense, according to von Hoffman.

 

With Rice on the ticket the Republicans are freed up to run a much stronger negative campaign against either Clinton or Obama because the Secretary of State provides them with cover against charges of sexism or racism. They would be able to go after Obama’s membership in Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., with whom Obama is close, has won himself the militant tag from conservatives because of his association with Nation of Islam leader the Rev. Louis Farrakhan. They can attack Hillary’s experience claims as consisting of her being Bill’s wife. They can challenge her boast that she is a strong, independent woman and paint her as a weak, hopelessly-in-love woman under the spell of a man subject not only to “bimbo eruptions” but also eruptions of smarmy deals with shady business figures.

Of course Rice would bring far more than gender and race to the table. She would bring good, solid conservative principles, unquestioned Christian morals and eight years of high-level Executive Branch experience. While not all have enthusiastically applauded her work as secretary of state or the directions the Bush administration has taken in international policy, she unarguably has held the post during a most trying time and has performed quite capably.  She has been mentioned many times as a possible candidate for high office, including Dick Morris’ 2007 book ‘Condi vs. Hillary,’ which argued that she was the only Republican who could beat Hillary Clinton. Web sites, including www.rice2008.com, have begged her to run for the past two years. (The rice2008.com site is now peddling McCain/Rice bumperstickers.)

Von Hoffman notes that Rice has the star power and magnetism usually associated with Democratic candidates and that she should be a worthy foe in a V.P. debate. While the NFL commissioner is a job Rice has often said would be of much more interest to her, von Hoffman believes “she would probably settle” for a spot on the GOP ticket. Perhaps McCain could convince her to do so to help keep her work for the past eight years from going down the drain under an Obama administration.

Personally, I would be happy with either Mitt or Condi on the ticket. Of course I would really be happier with Mitt and Condi as the ticket, but I’ve managed to lower my expectations a notch during the past month.

7 responses so far

Feb 27 2008

Profile Image of Stephen
Stephen

Romney’s Health Care Plan

Filed under Mitt Romney

As many of you already know, Mitt’s health care plan was significantly ahead of the curve. Many on the political stage have talked about reforming health care for years, while academics or so called visionaries have written articles or books defining what would or wouldn’t work in health care reform.

Of course, Mitt just went out and did it – implementing a comprehensive health care reform for Massachusetts.

This article’s underlying tone laments the fact that nowhere in South Carolina is such leadership evident. While many may look at solutions from different regions of the country with a jaundiced eye, deriving mainly from provincial attitudes, perhaps recognition of what Mitt was offering has started to surface.

Mitt’s revolutionary success in Massachusetts stemmed from his long-term strategic vision that addressed many of the interwoven complexities of political, bureaucratic, economic and medical issues that directly and indirectly affected a revised health care plan. Mitt reformative political moves in health care, frightened off many career politicians, however.

In politics, talking about substantive issues as opposed to actually getting things done tends to procure a longer political career and provide more favorable quotes in the press. In contrast, ruffling the feathers of preening political peacocks is a dangerous game.

Hopefully, over the next few years, the political flocks will take a second look at Romney as they travel in their migratory trajectories and view reality from a different perspective. We can only hope, right?

Stephen

How about Romney for S.C. guv?

Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 2:00 am

By Paul Hyde
phyde@greenvillenews.com

ki
Pic (U Mass)

Now that he’s out of the presidential race, Mitt Romney may need a new job.

How about this: Governor of South Carolina in 2010.

I’m kidding. Sort of.

We certainly could use some bold Romney-like gubernatorial leadership here — particularly in regard to health care.

The health-care plan Romney designed for Massachusetts has been criticized in some quarters, but the bottom line is this: Romney reduced his state’s uninsured population by more than half.

Before the Romney plan, Massachusetts had about 600,000 uninsured people.

After the plan, Massachusetts has less than 300,000 uninsured people.

Not bad for a start.

By any measure, that’s impressive progress.

It’s not the sort of progress we’ve seen in South Carolina, to say the least.

Will any elected leader in South Carolina step forward with a plan to reduce our uninsured population (700,000) by half?

So far, no one has shown Romney-like leadership on health care in South Carolina.

Romney’s Massachusetts plan includes both carrots and sticks. The compromise with a Democratic Legislature increased public spending on health care but also sought to control costs through private-insurance competition.

The plan sets up a marketplace where people can buy portable insurance with pretax dollars, which sounds a great deal like the sort of consumer-directed approach that U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis currently is touting in his health-care tour of the Fourth District.

No, Romney’s plan didn’t cover everyone in Massachusetts, as originally intended.

Yes, the plan is projected to cost the state more than the $472 million projected.

Romney, as a presidential candidate, even distanced himself at times from his own greatest success as governor.

But with all its shortcomings, the innovative health-care plan by a courageous Gov. Romney and Massachusetts Legislature still reduced the uninsured population in that state by half.

Would that South Carolina’s leaders could be so courageous.

http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/OPINION/802270363/1008

No responses yet

Feb 27 2008

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

THE AGE OF JOHN MCCAIN

Filed under John McCain

Earlier this month, I gave an opinion about whether I would support John McCain if he becomes the Republican nominee. I have not had the time to write more on the subject, but I hope to later in this space.

In the meantime, this is a good piece to contemplate:

OPINION — Is McCain Too Old? — By RYAN COLE — February 27, 2008; Page A16

8 responses so far

Older Posts »