You are viewing page 11 of 16.

I'm a Republican, or My Serious Look at Peroutka

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 5:49 PM
I. On Selection of Judges
When both John Kerry and the debate moderator challenged Mr. Bush to say if he is for or against Roe v. Wade, Mr. Bush was silent, saying only that he would have no litmus test for judges which means, of course, he would have no pro-life, anti-abortion litmus test. In other words, Mr. Bush is saying that the abortion issue is so unimportant that he would not, in any way, make it a qualification for any judges he would appoint.

I think most people know President Bush would likely select pro-life judges. What the president has always insisted on, though, is that he should not have a litmus test on judges. We should not re-legislate from the bench. If a perfectly impartial judge would find that nothing in the constitution bans abortion (I'd be surprised about that!), then the proper solution would be to pass legislation in Congress not to appoint judges who are biased and legislate from the bench — even if that legislating from the bench going “our way.”

This is important. Judges should not rule based on their personal opinions, but on the constitution. President Bush's one qualification for judges is that they be strict constructionists. If we are confident that the constitution is on our side, then a strict constructionist would support the pro-life cause. The key is that he should support the cause because of his strict interpretation of the constitution, not because he reinterprets the constitution as a partisan just like the liberal activist judges.

II. On Free Trade
Peroutka advocates the dangerous policy of withdrawing from the WTO and NAFTA (and, if you didn't guess, he does not support the Free Trade Zone of the Americas). Here's the problem with that: free trade is the only economically sensible position, in my estimation (backed up by most economists that I know of).

In the global market, it is necessary, for instance, that I can get computer components as affordably possible from Japan, Taiwan, etc. (Note, I do have problems with not restricting trade with China, but I'm talking as a whole here.) Moreover, free trade works both ways: if countries can freely export to us, we can freely export to them. Placing tariffs and other restrictions on imports from countries with normalized relations just causes problems: take, for instance, the recent retaliatory tariff war between the U.S. and the E.U. that hurt Florida produce growers.

Isolationism is not an option.

Moreover, even though keeping jobs in the U.S. is a noble cause, first you are going to have to show me the American workers who want those jobs. The country seems to be no longer interested in manufacturing jobs, so if you try to stop imports, what do you do? You cause a government induced shortage. We should instead let the invisible hand of the market guide itself. Here's where I'll tip my hand towards libertarianism. We ought to keep the government out of trade as much as possible by making trade as free as possible.

III. On Civil Rights and the Defunct Confederacy
I'm of the mindset that completely equal rights between those of different skin colors is part of the inalienable right to freedom given to us by our Creator. That does not mean I support affirmative action and other reverse discrimination policies, instead, I think the government should just stay out of the issue as much as possible (albeit, I'd keep equal opportunity requirements that prohibit racist policies by employers, etc.). In other words, I support the “colorblind” policies advocated by the Republican Party.

So far I have not found any direct remarks by Mr. Peroutka on the issue, but having a Confederate Flag on a link to “Southerners for Peroutka,” which itself links to a page with a Confederate Flag on a capitol building speaks volumes. Delving into that (apparently) official site then takes one to a set of books on topics such as “Why Jefferson Davis was Right.” Is Peroutka running for president of the Union or the Confederacy? Moreover, the “We Have a Dream” captioned picture of the capitol with a confederate flag seems to strongly indicate a backlash against Martin Luther King, Jr.'s “I Have a Dream Speech,” based on the allusion made by the quote juxtaposed with the picture.

Is this the kind of stuff we would want in a president of the United States?



Christian Science Monitor Presidential Quiz
Take it here. Found on Reverend Mike's House of Hash.

Debate #3

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 8:21 PM

Considering Stem Cells

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 8:05 PM

Demonstrating Opportunity Cost Through Funnies

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 1:51 PM

President Match Quiz

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 4:34 PM

Kerry is down to far to even show up in this image, he's somewhere below Ralph Nader in comparison to me, hovering at about 18%.

You can take that quiz here (note: the site is kind of buggy at the moment, but if you register before answering the questions, the site will auto-fill your answers if you retake the quiz or want to try one of the other ones they have there).

What a GREAT Debate

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 8:07 PM

Why George Bush Should Win

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 9:01 PM

He refuses to realize that it was the law of the land since 1996, as signed into effect by President Clinton, that Saddam Hussein was to be ousted. He refuses to recall his 1997 Crossfire position that unilateral removal of of the Baathist regime was acceptable if the world wouldn't join the cause. He refuses to admit he has had nine distinct opinions on the war in Iraq since announcing his run in the presidential race. He feels he can say it was the “wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place,” but at the same time there have been numerous points since the fall of Baghdad that he has supported the war, just like many of the other top Democrats that now oppose it.

He talks about bringing in allies while he attempts to ruin John Howard. He trivializes the contributions of Poland, Australia, Britain and 27 other nations as the coalition of the coerced and the bribed. Not perhaps completely out of character for one who once spent his time testifying to the Congress that Vietnam vets were “war criminals.” Kerry loves to glory in things as he attacks and demeans them (he sure loved playing up his part in “war crimes” at the Democratic Convention).

The French and the Germans have said even a shift to Kerry will not get them to enter the fray in Iraq. Look, they don't want to get involved, that's their prerogative and it is not likely they will flip-flop just because a guy who says he opposed the war while he supported it gets elected. What about other allies? As President Bush noted, “So what's the message going to be: 'Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?'”

Without veering too far off my point, consider this: do we want a president who advocates potentially disastrous treaties like Kyoto and the International Criminal Court merely to increase the respect of the world? Kerry's argument for Kyoto was not its merits but how it made us look in the world community — what is this nation sized peer pressure? Or is it better to have a president like President Bush who can strongly disagree with leaders such as President Putin of Russia while maintaining a good rapport with him (the warm relationship between the two presidents is no secret)? President Bush wisely pointed out this last night — a president should get along with the world without compromising to the world.

But back to my main points. In this debate, as John Kerry fired off baseless attacks on the very policies he advocated, I became even more convinced that John Kerry is the wrong leader at the wrong time and the wrong place. President Bush may not be right on everything, he might not be able to beat Kerry on an IQ test either… but his sincerity is clear and he isn't a dummy that should be misunderestimated either. Every bit of sincerity and truthfulness that was apparent in him last night was doubly apparent when I saw him in person in July. President Bush is the “real deal.”

If John Kerry came out and said, “I made a mistake on the intelligence, the president made a mistake, now lets move on. I have a plan and this is what it is…,” I could respect him. Instead, he is doing quite the opposite — he places all the blame, including that entitled to him, on the president. Someone who lies and misleads (even, I would note, on the claim he made that he had never called the President a liar using that word) to try to present an anti-war facade over his support of the war, even before Bush was president, is hardly praise worthy.

That is why George Bush should win.

Debate

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 7:25 PM

On Media Bias

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 6:59 PM

Wictory Wednesday

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 6:37 PM
You are viewing page 11 of 16.