Archive for November, 2004
« Previous Entries Next Entries »Pro-Abortion Is Not “An American Value”
Friday, November 19th, 2004The new president of NARAL, Nancy Keenan, is upbeat and excited about her new job, despite the fact that (according to WaPo writer Evelyn Nieves) NARAL “is facing its biggest fight since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973″ because of the potential for President Bush to nominate as many as three Supreme Court Justices.
“I’m thrilled,” Keenan, 52, a former Montana legislator and superintendent of education, said of her new post. “I really believe that pro-choice is an American value and that it is shared by women and men across the country.”
An American value?
Okay, first let’s look at this more carefully. Keenan couldn’t even bring herself to say “abortion is an American value…” she said, “pro-choice is an American value.”
The issue of abortion itself is grossly mischaracterized by the NARAL (and other groups in the pro-abortion movement) by the language they use to frame it. As if avoiding the issue of the growing life inside the mother completely, they dismiss labels like “pro-life” and substitute it with “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice” while they proudly claim themselves as “pro-choice”. In the abortion debate “pro-choice” sounds a lot better than “pro-abortion” – and groups like NARAL know it.
The use of “choice” as the buzzword to define the abortion issue is perhaps the most disturbing and most misleading use of language I’ve ever seen in politics.
In a society where racial and gender issues still exist, by making the abortion issue focused on “choice” the pro-abortion movement has effectively communicated to women that abortion is a form of women’s liberation. “Choice” can be defined as “the power, right, or liberty to choose,” and by framing abortion on this term using “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” to define the opposing positions it implies to women that abortion is a symbol of all women’s freedom, because “choice” is the freedom to make a decision, and anything “anti-choice” must be against a woman’s freedom. This results in abortion being euphemized as “reproductive freedom.”
These plays on words and convenient euphemisms allow someone like Nancy Keenan to say something like abortion is “an American value” even though groups like NARAL opposed Laci and Conner’s Law, and support partial-birth abortion.
American values? Guess again.
I Support Marines Who Kill Terrorists…
Thursday, November 18th, 2004….Shouldn’t you? Sign this petition…
HAT TIP: A Collection of Thoughts
I Never Liked Her Music Anyway
Thursday, November 18th, 2004Earlier this year, singer Linda Ronstadt aligned herself with Michael Moore, (remember the incident at the Aladdin), now she’s opening her mouth and not just singing, but bashing Republicans. In an interview with USA Today, she claimed, “People don’t realize that by voting Republican, they voted against themselves,” lamenting about the election.
On Iraq, she opined, “I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don’t know anything about the Iraqis, but they’re angry and frustrated in their own lives.” Then she compared current American politics with the Hitler regime:
It’s like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we’ve got a new bunch of Hitlers.”
A bunch of new Hitlers? Who is the one demonizing an entire group of people solely for being different? Who was the group breaking into campaign headquarters, stealing laptops, vandalizing buildings and signs? Which side really more closely resembles fascists?
Perhaps it’s time for people like Linda Ronstadt and the rest of her ilk to look in the mirror and see who really resembles fascists.
Terminating The Natural Born Citizen Requirement for The Presidency?
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004What is sure to be a big issue in the near future is the “Arnold Amendment” – a constitutional amendment allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible to run for President of the United States.
As a strong supporter, I have doubts about an Arnold-centric approach, though it definitely helps establish an earned-media beachhead for the idea. If a potential 28th Amendment to the Constitution remains about one person, it will go nowhere — and give Democrats an excuse to gleefully obstruct while denying some Republicans their dream of a Schwarzenegger presidency.
I agree that using Arnold as the poster boy for this cause, while an effective media strategy, is not the best catalyst for pushing the amendment. That being said, I personally disagree with the proposed amendment.
I have no doubt that eventually there would be a campaign to amend the constitution to remove the natural born citizen restriction for the office of the Presidency – but the reality is Arnold is the face of this cause, and to initiate changing a law for the benefit of a single person is hardly justification for changing it. Yes, there is a bigger picture, but using Arnold for this cause is bound to influence more people to support it then would without a celebrity politician who has yet to finish his first term in public office.
Individuals like Arnold or Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm are unique cases of naturalized citizens deemed to have potential to run on a national ticket. However, laws serve a broader purpose then to govern for exceptional cases.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the “dangers from foreign force and influence” on American politics. Even today, campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from non-American citizens – in order to prevent foreign influence on domestic politics. The natural born citizen requirement is yet another safeguard to prevent foreign influence – this time regarding the highest office of the land.
Does someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm present such a threat? I would say probably not. However, changing the Constitution now will affect not only these two politicians, but all naturalized citizens from the moment the amendment is ratified on.
Foreign countries already have more influence on our elections than they should. It seems even our own citizens – more specifically the anti-war liberals – believe that the United States should succumb to the power will of other countries (France, Germany, and Russia come to mind.) Certainly the internet also allows foreign media to weigh in and influence the American electorate.
Wouldn’t allowing non-natural born citizens to become President only increase the potential for foreign influence on the Presidency? There are countless circumstances with which you argue that both natural-born and naturalized citizen could have questionable loyalties. I would tend believe however that a naturalized citizen would have a greater chance of being subject to foreign influence than a natural born citizen.
A naturalized citizen running for the Presidency probably would never get to such a position if his or her loyalties were in question – but I still feel better about keeping the safeguard in place.
Patrick Ruffini offers what would be a much more effective strategy to bring this amendment to fruition – but I still am highly cautious about the unforeseen and unintended results that could happen by the ratification of the “Arnold Amendment.”
As of now, I have been unable to find any specific details on the “Arnold Amendment” – particularly a residency requirement. Therefore it is hard to completely judge the amendment. I have no idea if it would allow someone to move to this country one day and file papers the next day. My initial feeling is that the amendment is a bad idea – however I do not know how bad it is yet because I do not know what safeguards it offers to prevent foreign influence on the presidency.
So let’s see what they are asking for, and discuss the pros and cons.
Bush Nominates Condi
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004Earlier this afternoon, Bush made the announcement:
Good afternoon. I’m pleased to announce my nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America’s Secretary of State. Condi Rice is already known to all Americans, and to much of the world.
During the last four years I’ve relied on her counsel, benefited from her great experience and appreciated her sound and steady judgment. And now I’m honored that she has agreed to serve in my Cabinet. The Secretary of State is America’s face to the world. And in Dr. Rice, the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country.
Both Condi and I have been proud to serve with our friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell. He has been one of the most effective and admired diplomats in America’s history. Secretary Powell has helped to rally the world in a global war, has helped to resolve dangerous regional conflicts; he’s helped to confront the desperate challenges of hunger, poverty and disease. He has been tireless and selfless and principled, and our entire nation is grateful for his lifetime of service.
The Democrats’ New Hope?
Tuesday, November 16th, 2004What’s next for the Democratic party? Who is going to step up to the plate in 2008? The Washington Post reports that Democratic Underground visitors think Virginia Governor Mark R. Warner could be their party’s next presidential candidate.
Three years ago, Warner persuaded voters in an overwhelmingly red state to put him in office with a NASCAR-loving, pro-death penalty, pro-gun rights, fiscally conservative campaign. Since then, he has backed some restrictions on abortion, signed more than a dozen gun rights bills, balanced the state’s books and persuaded a Republican legislature to help him pass a $1.5 billion tax increase.
Placing strategy over policy, the belief is that nominating Warner would be “providing the party a presidential candidate who could appeal to the conservative, heartland voters who helped reelect President Bush.”
Even Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s former campaign manager said that Warner has been able to relate to rural voters – something Democrats have had trouble with.
The only problem is, he’d have to survive the primaries first… and let’s face it, no Democrat would make it through the Democrat primaries campaigning as a centrist.
The potential candidacy of Warner would fit will with the forthcoming makeover of Democratic Party – but it seems like the Democrats think they make themselves over by looking increasingly similar to Republicans.
So, is the key to Democrats’ hopes a donkey in elephant’s clothing?
Don’t count on it. Republicans make better Republicans any day. When it comes down to it, the Democratic Party will nominate a liberal.
Frist: Filibusters Must End
Friday, November 12th, 2004Hopefully, this is a sign that the Senate GOP is going to do more to stand up to Senate Democrats who have been obstructing the process of giving judicial nominees and up or down vote.\:
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has long favored a change in Senate rules, said on Thursday “one way or another” procedural roadblocks against federal judicial nominees must end.
Frist noted that Senate Democrats have already used so-called filibusters to deny confirmation votes on 10 of President Bush’s appeals court nominees.
“The Senate cannot allow the filibuster of circuit court nominees to continue,” Frist said in a speech for delivery to The Federalist Society, a conservative group.
“Nor can we allow the filibuster to extend to potential Supreme Court nominees,” the Tennessee Republican said.
“One way or another,” Frist said, “the filibuster of judicial nominees must end.”
Let’s hope the Senate GOP is serious this time.
John Kerry, Is It Not Better To Burn Out Than To Fade Away?
Monday, November 8th, 2004With the election behind him, John Kerry must now figure out what he wants to do. Is he going to just fade away like his buddy Michael Dukakis did in 1988, as the first Massachusetts liberal to lose to George Bush.
Apparently, those close to my senator say they don’t see Kerry fading away. According to the AP, “instead, they said he would probably take the road less traveled by recent senators who tried and failed to take the White House, and remain a strong voice in Congress on issues he cared about.”
Remain a strong voice? How about become a strong voice. Besides the fact that Kerry hasn’t done anything for me since he’s been in the Senate, he hasn’t even been in Senate enough to have any kind of voice on behalf of his constituents since he began running for President.
John Kerry was initially rejected by his own party until his comeback in Iowa. He was then rejected by the broader electorate last week. What kind of a voice he might have in the future, I don’t know, but don’t expect him to overshadow future presidential nominees in his party.
With any luck, when he’s up for reelection in 2008, the people of Massachusetts, now more aware of his record will kick him out of the Senate… something he should have done voluntarily when he went AWOL from the job in the first place.
« Previous Entries Next Entries »