One more comment on Giuliani's endorsement of McCain

It was obvious to me that Rudy Giuliani, on losing Florida, would endorse John McCain. After all (see this article, in which Giuliani says: "I think I made it clear during a debate that if I had not been running, I would be supporting John McCain. So I'm not running, and I'm supporting John McCain and he is far away the best person to be the commander in chief of the United States.") They have generally appealed to the same kind of moderate Republican (such as myself). And so I have joined him (and Governor Schwarzenegger of California, whom I also admire) in endorsing John McCain.

Romney's big blunder

In a recent debate, Mitt Romney pointed out that the US has generally chosen as its Presidents people with experience as state governors (executives who run things) rather than Senators (legislators). Of course, he failed to acknowledge that John McCain has been other things besides a Senator, and in particular a high officer in the Navy. And the US has often chosen high military officers for President. (In fact, from the very beginning, namely George Washington. But of course, one can add Andrew Jackson and Dwight Eisenhower, as well as a lot of others less highly regarded. True, they were all Army, not Navy, but it takes the same kind of leadership skills to be a high Naval officer as an equally-high Army officer.)

Isn't it obvious that such people as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who have served as chief executives of populous political subdivisions (after all, regarding Giuliani, New York City has more people than many states!) would not support someone they felt could not handle the job?

John McCain for President!

The result of yesterday's Florida primary is clear. Rudy Giuliani, my favorite among the candidates, is out. The word is that he will drop out and endorse McCain. And I am following him.

As I've said on a few occasions here, McCain is a perfectly acceptable candidate to me. It's only that I preferred Giuliani. But if Giuliani can't make it, I'll be happy to support McCain.

McCain's candidacy resembles John Kerry's four years ago: at the very beginning of the campaign cycle, he was favored. But as the campaign progressed, others took the lead; among the Democrats last time, predominantly John Dean; among this year's Republicans, first Giuliani, later Huckabee and Romney. But with the early contests (as early as Iowa for those Democrats; just afterward for this year's Republicans), they got the lead back. And like Kerry, McCain is now in a great position to be nominated.

But there are some differences, which will surface in the run-up to the November general election. Last time, Kerry represented the extreme-left wing of his party. McCain, by contrast, is a moderate-conservative, able to gain votes from more moderate members of the opposite party. Just about no Republican would support Kerry four years ago; this time, many Democrats will support McCain (my wife having already said she may!), and the fact that Joe Lieberman is going to campaign for him will help that.

In short, I cannot really be too unhappy at the way things are turning out. The Republicans will nominate John McCain, a proven leader, a man who can work with politicians of both parties, and a man with the experience it takes to be President of the United States. And though Giuliani was my first preference, McCain is a great second choice. I heartily endorse John S. McCain, III for the 2008 presidential election.

Change!

All the Democrats (and it would seem Mitt Romney among the Republicans, as well) seem to be portraying themselves as the candidate to bring change to this country. But is this a good thing?

First, is there so much wrong with this country that needs to be changed? I'm pretty happy with the situation as it is. I would be less likely to vote for a candidate that will change things than for one who will preserve things the way they are. But, of course, that is what conservatism is all about, and I'm rather conservative in many ways.

And second, who's to say that a change will be for the better? A lot of ways that we could change would be major disasters. And many would at least make things somewhat worse. I'm sure that the advent of Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, and Pol Pot in Cambodia brought many changes, but most Germans, Russians, and Cambodians were worse off with those changes than they had been before.

So what's so great about change?

After New Hampshire

This morning, while I was having a tea and a pastry at a local Starbucks, I heard a woman loudly advocating Mike Huckabee's candidacy. Not, as one might think, because of his “Christian leadership” position, but mainly because he was pro-gun! Of course, this only underscores the problems with Huckabee — it would be hard to find an issue on which Huckabee and I are on the same side. (He did integrate a congregation where he was a preacher; I guess that's one good thing that could be said about Mike Huckabee.)

But looking at the New Hampshire results, it is good to see that they provide a retreat from the craziness of Iowa. New Hampshire tends to have a libertarian mindset; after all, the state motto is “Live Free or Die.” And Huckabee's positions are pretty far from libertarianism. So although my favorite candidate, Rudy Giuliani, didn't do very well there (but then, he hadn't bothered to campaign there!) the candidate who did win, John McCain, is someone I consider a good one. (McCain is probably my second choice, actually.) So I'm not unhappy with the New Hampshire results. (And they probably sink Mitt Romney's candidacy, though he still could help his chances in Michigan.)

Over on the Democratic side, New Hampshire followed its usual practice of confounding the experts. Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama, even though Obama's win in Iowa propelled him into the public spotlight and Clinton's tears might have ended serious consideration of her candidacy. Of course, since I like neither of the two, I don't really care that much about who won that contest.

Now on to the next state!

The Huckabee threat to the Republican Party

The more I contemplate the possibility of Mike Huckabee being nominated by the Republican Party, the more it troubles me. First of all, Huckabee represents the exact opposite of the kind of Republicanism I consider my own political direction. He is socially conservative (favoring policies that tend to establish Christianity as official policy, and intolerant to such people as the gay population) and economically liberal (someone who raised taxes in his home state, and seems to favor using taxation as a redistributive policy). I have always maintained that the kind of direction the Republican party should take is the reverse: socially liberal (inclusive toward all kinds of religions and social lifestyles) and economically conservative (reducing taxes and taking the government out of the economy except as necessary).

I would, of course, most prefer a Giuliani nomination. I could certainly live with McCain, who is a little further from me politically, but close enough for comfort. Even Mitt Romney – someone I wonder about, sometimes, because of his reversals on key issues – would get my vote against any Democrat who could be nominated. But if Mike Huckabee gets nominated, I can only hope that another Mike, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, makes the independent run some people think he has in mind. In a three-way race with Huckabee, Bloomberg, and any Democrat, Bloomberg gets my vote. In a two-way race with Huckabee and any Democrat, who knows what I would do? I certainly dread the prospect.

The institutionalization of Christmas

Tomorrow is the day when those of us who are not Christians really see ourselves as a minority. The rest of the year, we are Americans, just like all the other citizens of this country. But tomorrow, the celebration of the birth of the founder of the Christian religion, we are outsiders, our sensibilities being ignored by everyone in power.

Libraries, museums, and all other city, county, state, and national Government buildings (except for emergency facilities) will be closed. The post offices will have been selling Christmas stamps for the past few weeks; postal clerks may even be shocked if you tell them you don't want Christmas stamps (I remember one year going to a post office which had nothing but Christmas stamps! I had to settle for lower-denomination stamps that I could combine to make the then-current postal rate!) Oh yes, they have had, in recent years, Chanukah and Eid stamps as well, but there are never enough variations to account for all the various religious beliefs in this pluralistic country, not to mention atheists and agnostics. Why not just let the Government ignore all the various beliefs and keep to its secular business?

One runs into people who claim that “no establishment of religion” in our First Amendment means the government cannot favor one Christian denomination over others, not realizing that Christianity is just one religion among many. I can not fathom this point of view. Giving special preference to Christianity over Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, or even atheism is just as much establishing a particular religion as taxing us to support the Episcopal Church would be.

Fifty-five years ago, I was subjected to a humiliating treatment by my own teachers in public school as a 10-year-old boy because of my religion. I declared that I could not sing songs with words like “Oh come, let us adore Him, Christ the Lord.” Up until that time, my music teacher had treated me as a “teacher's pet” because I had a good singing voice. From that point on, she conspired with another teacher to make things as hard for me as possible. So I say what I am saying here from a basis of experience.

Nobody is advocating a policy such as that in Saudi Arabia where a person can be criminally prosecuted for selling Christmas cards. Rather, let Christians freely celebrate Christmas in their homes and churches (and other religions' adherents freely celebrate their own religious holidays in their own homes and places of worship) but let the Government stay out of these celebrations and be resolutely secular and neutral.

A happy December 25th to all. But please don't wish me a “merry Christmas.” Please don't wish anyone a “merry Christmas” unless you know they are a Christian.

I wish I could believe Mitt Romney!

Today the New York Times published an interview with Mitt Romney, in which he tries to describe himself as a "George Romney Republican." Would that this were so! George Romney, Mitt's father, would have made a great President; I supported him many years ago. But George Romney was a clearly moderate Republican, opposed to the right-wing extremism that captured the nomination for Barry Goldwater. Mitt Romney, by contrast, seems bound to woo this year's right-wing extremists, even rejecting moderate, pragmatic positions he claimed to have when he was running for office in Massachusetts. Now, whatever Mitt Romney's positions are, we can't be clear; he's been on both sides of a lot of issues. If he's really a George Romney Republican, he should repudiate the hard-right positions he's been taking recently; he won't do that, however, because that's where his support is coming from, it seems. So what is Mitt Romney, really?

New Jersey and the death penalty

In New Jersey, they just signed into law a new bill, ending the death penalty in the state. Obviously, those people who feel the death penalty is inhumane are applauding. I do not join them. Of course, in practical terms this act does nothing — New Jersey has not executed anyone in years, and Governor Corzine recently commuted the sentences of everyone on New Jersey's death row. But what this tells the world is that the lives of convicted murderers are worth more than those of their victims.

I feel that punishment should be commensurate with the crime. I would never wish to see the death penalty meted out for any crime short of murder. But no punishment short of the death penalty is appropriate for anyone who deliberately takes the life of an innocent person.

A definite condemnation of the New Jersey legislature and governor is in order.

Are Mormons Christians? Should anyone care?

Lately, people have been raising the question, “Are Mormons Christians?” Obviously, this really depends on what your definition of a “Christian” is. Many Protestants do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christians. On the other hand, I've seen Catholics consider themselves the only true Christians. Obviously, if you define a “Christian” as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (termed “Christ” by his supporters) then it comes down to your own definition of what Jesus' religious beliefs were. And certainly, by their lights, Mormons are Christians; they actually call their church “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

But then, my question is “Should anyone care?” After all, we have a Constitution which clearly states (Art. VI): “... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” And therefore, whether Mitt Romney (for he is the only Mormon being considered by people asking that question) is qualified for the Presidency cannot be related to the answer to this question. And I say this, despite the fact that I'm rather cool to Romney for other reasons (see earlier posts, specifically my July 14 post).

Really, the people raising the question “Are Mormons Christians?" are bigots if they mean to imply that only Christians can be President, and irrelevant if they do not.

Thus my response: “Should anyone care?”

Panic among Giuliani's "social conservative" opponents?

Today I saw a newspaper article talking about "panic" among the "social conservatives" afraid of a Giuliani nomination. (See http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/NATION/112010053/1001.) Nothing could make me happier. It is "social conservatives" whose control of the GOP has distressed me in recent years, and taking the party away from them is the greatest need that Republicans like myself see in our political situation.

Let's face it. "Social conservatives" is just a code word for religious bigots, who have nothing in common with the kind of freedom of religion that this blog supports. And the sooner they can be evicted from positions of power in the Republican Party, the better it will be for all of us.

Let us just hope that the Giuliani supporters can hold their grounds. Rudy Giuliani will be the greatest thing that has happened to the Republican Party in many years, if we can get him nominated.

The Supreme Court will be heard on gun control

The question of whether the Disctrict of Columbia can enact and enforce it's extremely strong gun control regulations will now go to the Supreme Court. (See, e. g., http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?ref=us)

It's hard to tell how this will end up. The Court's conservative justices are sympathetic to the NRA's crazy view of what the Second Amendment means, but they also believe in stare decisis. And they don't have a total majority anyway.

Naturally, if you have read my earlier posts, I would hope that DC's laws are upheld. But I can't predict what the Court will do.

The Mukasey nomination

Well, the Senate confirmed Mukasey, 53-40. Nobody doubted that he was qualified for the post, and Sen. Schumer of New York ad even suggested Mukasey as a good choice in the beginning. But 40 Senators just had to vote no to make some stupid political point. None of them really had an objection to Mukasey except that he wouldn't take a position on whether or not a particular interrogation procedure (which, because it involved classified information Mukasey had not been cleared to receive, he didn't even know if it was in use!) constituted illegal torture.

It seems that the Senate needs to learn that the U. S. is not a parliamentary system. The executive does not fall if the legislature votes no-confidence. The Senate is not supposed to refuse Presidential nominations to Cabinet posts just because they have policy disagreements with the President, or because they want to pressure the nominee into making statements that they might use against the President. The Senate's only reason to refuse a Presidential nomination to an executive office is lack of qualifications. (It might be in order to give more input on nominations to judicial offices, though even there they have no business trying to force the President to nominate someone that does not meet with his approval.)

This is the most belligerent Senate in recent history, and I think they need to read the Constitution and learn the difference between our system and parliamentary ones. Their duty is to legislate, not to try to control the Presidency.

Harry Reid just doesn't understand!

I saw this quote today in a newspaper (it can be seen online at the Fox News site at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306178,00.html ):

"[I]f Congressional Republicans would stand up to the President and demand a change of course in Iraq, we could spend less time working to fix this failed war policy and more time focusing on other threats we face around the world."

Well, I have a news flash for Sen. Reid: Congressional Republicans don't want to stand up to the President, because they (and I) think that his is not a "failed war policy."

Way back in the long-gone days of World War II and immediately following, it was the Democrats who were unified in fighting the enemies of our nation and the Republicans who had isolationists, people who felt we should ignore the rest of the world and concentrate on domestic affairs, in their number. Now these are reversed.

The Democrats were right then. And the Republicans are right now. Sen. Reid should emulate the good Republicans like Sen. Vandenberg of that era and give up this isolationism for the good of the world.

The Children's Health bill

Obviously, the Democrats in Congress care more about confronting the President than actually passing a children's health bill. The President vetoed their earlier bill and the Dems couldn't find the votes to override, so Pelosi et al., instead of trying to put through a smaller bill, want to repackage the bill slightly, but without reducing the amount. It seems she's never heard of "half a loaf is better than none." But of course, she doesn't want her loaf, or even half a loaf: all she wants is to draw another veto so she can paint the President as insensitive to children's needs.

She clearly doesn't want to help kids; she only wants to get into a fight.

More on the Turkey/Armenian genocide resolution

It seems that others agree with me on the post I recently made. Yesterday there was a nice column by Jay Ambrose (a man whose columns sometimes coincide with my thinking and sometimes do not). He said (http://www.examiner.com/a-993792~Jay_Ambrose__Political_opportunism_explains_bad_timing_of_Turkish_resolution.html):

WASHINGTON - It’s hard to imagine a congressional action more pointlessly provocative than passing a resolution that Turks committed genocide against Armenians some 90 years ago. But here come House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, many of her fellow Democrats, and some Republicans with an ironclad determination to do just such a detrimental thing to their country.


The cost could be high. The Turks don’t like this idea one little bit, and warn they may just quit letting the United States and its allies use Turkey as a crucial transport avenue for military supplies in Iraq if the condemnatory declaration gets majority votes in the House and Senate.


This Muslim democracy, which has itself been a vital ally in multiple respects, may also refuse to cooperate in other ways. One example: Our leverage in keeping Turkey from going to war with our Kurdish friends in northern Iraq could be lessened as a result.


And what exactly would the resolution achieve? Nothing, of course. No one can possibly think that a congressional vote will make this atrocity any more real or true, or alter an understanding that is dependent on witnesses, evidence and scholars, not elected officials.


It’s not as if the judgment of humankind is dependent on majority votes in the U.S. Congress, or as if anyone alive in Turkey today had anything to do with what happened then. The thought that a condemnation now might help dissuade others from repeating such vileness is an extraordinary stretch.


Why on Earth should it be the job of Congress to go around saying what it thinks on this or any other distant historical event? How about Congress paying more attention to current events and leaving assessments of past iniquities to historians, as critics have suggested?


Considering the disadvantages such a futile resolution would heap on us during our present, perilous struggle with Islamic fascists, you begin to wonder what’s up with Pelosi and friends. Utter, total, half-crazed incompetence, maybe, or could it conceivably be a traitorous hatred for their own land?


Surely not. It’s got to be something else. And so you read more on the subject, and you find the answer: a Reuters story reporting that something close to 2 million Armenian Americans have been lobbying for years for a resolution of the kind recently approved for floor consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.


“U.S. representatives in Congress and state governments now realize the Armenian community has a lot of political power and they can make contributions to political causes and various parties,” Armenian American filmmaker Michael Hagopian told the Reuters reporter.


In other words, U.S. representatives - mostly Democrats - shrug their shoulders when a Turkish military leader warns of an irreparable tear in U.S.-Turkey relations or the Pentagon notes how logistically dependent we are on Turkey in the Middle East, but they do multiple bows when some slight political opportunity shows its face.


Democrats aren’t alone in their frequent obeisance to anyone and everyone who might do them a favor, of course. When they had control of Congress, Republicans had a hard time refusing favors for special interests at public expense, giving us spending records at variance with both their enunciated principles and the common good. For that and other reasons, they ultimately paid a steep electoral price.

That probably says it better than I could. And it seems that some of the Democrats have begun to recognize this. (See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWW8WW0xt_U4Iqg30uuw23lBuEvgD8SB6NNG2, where we see that the sponsors of the resolution are pulling out.)

On Turks and Armenians

The Turks and Armenians are squabbling about a Turkish massacre of Armenians that happened over 90 years ago. Neither side is exactly covering itself with glory. The Turks refuse to accept that this massacre can be characterized as genocide, and are threatening to retaliate if the U. S. Congress passes a resolution declaring it to be such, even though it's a toothless resolution that commits us to nothing in response. Contrast this with, say, the Germans, who accept the fact that the Nazi regime was guilty of unspeakable crimes, and simply have taken it upon themselves to commit no more.

However, the Armenians are not without their faults. After all, what is gained by getting Congress to pass this resolution? It is, as I said, totally toothless, and accomplishes nothing except getting the Turks mad. The Ottoman Empire, which is the real guilty party, is long gone. And the current republic of Turkey certainly has no obligations.

Gore's Nobel Peace Prize

Once more, the Nobel Committee has proved that they give out Nobel Peace Prizes for political correctness, not for really furthering peace. I should not have been surprised that they gave one to Al Gore... but rather than expostulating myself, let me simply quote Charles Krauthammer, who had this to say on Fox News Sunday (I didn't see it on TV, but I read it in the paper):

Look, let's remember what the Prize is about. Al Gore now joins the ranks of Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism, Le Doc Tho, who signed a treaty on behalf of a government that two years later invaded and extinguished the country it signed that treaty with, and the most disgraceful ex-president of the United States Jimmy Carter, who, forget about Iraq -- I'll remind you in the Gulf War, actively lobbied other countries to oppose his country in helping it in going to war. So, look, this is a treaty that is, has nothing to do with peace, it's about politics. It's the...I'm sorry, the award.

The Nobel Peace Prize is about politics. It's the Kentucky Derby of the world left, and it gives it to people whose politics are either anti-American or anti-Bush, and that's why he won it.

I usually agree with Krauthammer, and I'm happy to let him speak for me. So take this as my own comment too.

Civil unions and gay marriage

In the state of Maryland, where I live, both the Governor, Martin O'Malley, and the speaker of the House of Delegates, Michael Busch, have come out in favor of civil unions, so I think that Maryland will join Vermont and Connecticut. And though I generally do not like anything associated with O'Malley, I think he is probably right. Civil unions are the best compromise between the religious right (who want to preserve "traditional marriage") and the gay friendly part of the public (who want equal rights).

Frankly, I see no harm in gay marriage. I cannot see how it even affects the people who are so opposed to it; if same-sex couples can get married, it certainly doesn't prevent opposite-sex couples from doing so. But if some people object to it being called a "marriage," then certainly giving them all the rights of a married couple without the word seems a good compromise.

Of course, the problem is that some people are (based on religious background) simply opposed to homosexuality. You can't show me anything that is not based on religion, and in fact on a specific religious belief, that makes homosexuality per se undesirable. And because we have a Constitution that forbids an "establishment of religion," no religious argument can hold water as a basis for our law.

So for once, I think O'Malley is right.

Politics at its worst

The Democrats have insisted on including a hate-crimes provision in a defense authorization bill. This is one of the worst examples of Congress trying to engineer legislation, not to make it conducive to accomplishing something good, but to try to embarrass the President. Either he signs it and puts into law something he feels is a bad provision (I might actually favor it, but it still doesn't have anything to do with defense funding, and many of the President's allies certainly don't) or he vetoes it and risks not having the military properly funded.

This is the sort of political behavior that gives politics a bad name.