A Sign of the Times?

Last night, I finally put out my Bush-Cheney yard sign, and this morning, it was gone. Considering that the area has lots of Bush signs it was rather disheartening to see that mine had been stolen and a nearby Kerry-Edwards sign had been left untouched.

Undeterred, I went back to the Bush-Cheney HQ and got a replacement. Oddly enough, shortly after putting up the new sign, I went to answer the door and my neighbor was there asking why I had a Bush-Cheney sign laying in front of the door. When it was returned is beyond me — I had not been out that door today, but apparently the sign thief brought back the sign. I'm curious if it was a guilty conscience or a desire to avoid getting caught and charged with theft and trespassing, but at least the sign is back in my care.

The new sign's frame remains up tonight, but the actual sign is in the great indoors until tomorrow morning when I will put it back up again. The local campaign volunteer suggested this measure as a good way to avoid having it damaged or stolen. Apparently a lot of Bush signs have been slashed and otherwise vandalized in the last few days (including one owned by a gentleman who was ahead of me in the line to pickup a sign). It seems to be another case of the vitriolic Bush haters that have been raiding Bush-Cheney offices and stealing signs across the country.

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

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

Well, I was out tonight so I listened to part of the debate on the radio and then watched all of it (courtesy of DishPlayer DVR) as soon as I got home. Using both forms of media, I felt that President Bush was clearly in the lead with both his answers — which were strong — and the clear feeling that came through of President Bush's conviction and warmth. In fact, I think the President magnified the excellent qualities he showed people in the second debate in this third debate. Unlike Sen. Kerry's “I have a plan” statements, the President laid out a smart, sensible plan to every issue he was asked about tonight.

I must say I'm disappointed, if CNN/Gallop/USA Today snap poll is correct, that people said Kerry won 52-39. I just cannot imagine this. Kerry dodged so many issues that President Bush hit head on.

In particular, I'd note that Kerry continues to dodge where he is going to get two new army divisions and his view of the draft. I am increasingly becoming convinced that a vote for Sen. Kerry (or any other candidate besides Bush — at least in swing states where it really matters — since that would encourage a Kerry win) is a vote to reinstate a draft. This is something that is not being covered enough, but it is Democrats that have recently been trying to start the draft back up. It is the Democrats that have, after sponsoring bills in the House and the Senate to reinstate the draft, who have been trying to tack the idea of the draft on the President — completely unreasonably and completely false.

The president, on the other hand, offers a common sense plan to bring troops back to the U.S. from Europe and parts of Korea where they are not needed as much, so that we can maintain an all volunteer army (the best kind, especially in these tough times when we need a smart, willing army). This is the way to win the war on terror and to make America safer.

We need four more years of the strong leadership of our President. I fear four years of John Kerry.

Considering Stem Cells

Note: I'm sorry about the political focus on my blog at the moment. If you're not into these kinds of posts, please don't leave, you only have to endure this for 21 more days — unless we have “Florida Reloaded.”

With Christopher Reeve's (“Superman”) death, stem cell research has taken an even more prominent roll in the coming election. The opportunist in Sen. Edwards came out today as he capitalized on the said death to emphasize why voters should vote for Kerry-Edwards instead of Bush-Cheney.

I have not seen, to date, a single example of embryonic stem cells appearing to offer any promising abilities not available in stem cells from the umbilical cord or adult stem cells. The only difference here is that embryonic stem cells require the death of human life, however tiny, whereas the others do not. Edwards appeals to our desire to save people from horrible diseases much the same way a snake oil salesman might attempt to sell his miracle cure. We want to believe, and thus we will, even if there is no solid evidence in favor of the advertised powers.

Additionally, Edwards is taking advantage of the American love of celebrity. Frankly, I think if the senator got up on stage and said that a President Kerry would have sacrificed a few people — ones that have been born — to save Christopher Reeve, and in fact, doing so would have cured him, I suspect many people would have been for it.

The difficult point is the question of what I'd want if I was in this kind of position. If I lost most physical facilities through some tragic incident, would I not advocate these same things? That's a difficult question I can't answer for sure, although I would hope that I would remain faithful to my principles. Ultimately, we should stick to what we feel is right when we do not have a bias so that, at some later point, when we do have a bias for whatever reason, we still have a moral compass and not just a relativistic need to help ourselves.

Demonstrating Opportunity Cost Through Funnies

A true classic.

President Match Quiz

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

President Bush won this one hands down. I'll have to talk more about that tomorrow. It was great!

Why George Bush Should Win

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

Well, tonight was the first debate. I love debates, as anyone who knows me would guess. Tonight's debate was mostly uneventful. As David Gergen noted to Larry King afterward, “there were no memorable lines, at least that I can remember.” I do not think there was a clear victor, although both candidates did a good job of holding their ground.

I do think that President Bush clearly communicated his views and effectively highlighted John Kerry's flip-flopping. He also highlighted the critical issue of Sen. Kerry's undermining of our allies (which includes a present, tragic process by which the Kerry campaign is trying to undermine Prime Minister John Howard of Australia in their upcoming elections).

The president also clearly continued his laudable rejection of the International Criminal Court that would, essentially, impair our sovereignty. I honestly do not understand how Mr. Kerry can possibly support a system that would allow our citizens to be brought under a court that does not have to adhere to our standards and is not under our laws and selection of judges.

On the other hand, John Kerry did a good job of spreading mistruths about President Bush. For example, that accusation that the President mislead us into the war. While President Bush correctly countered with the fact that Sen. Kerry also supported the actions toward Iraq until it became politically preferable not to, a presidential candidate should not be attacking their opponent for the very thing they supported and promoted for years before it finally happened.

President Bush's main failing in this debate with the fact that he appeared overly aggressive and somewhat nervous in responses for the first few questions for no particular reason that I can think of (other than the fact that millions of people were watching — but that's nothing new for either of the candidates). On the other hand, I think Kerry started doing the same thing somewhat during the last part. Odd.

So, I'm voting for President Bush as the winner — both in truthfulness and overall substance, but it would appear John Kerry's mistruths might help him with this debate.

On Media Bias

Because I've seen, during this whole Rathergate thing, a lot of people either arguing that the media has no bias or that it is controlled by a vast conspiracy, I felt it was high time to present again what I feel is a more realistic view. Before I get to that, let me link to two must read editorials on the issue, both from former CBS News employees:

• Throwing the Book at Them by Dennis E. Powell, The National Review. Dennis is a good friend of mine, check out his piece.
• 60 Minutes of Fame by Bernard Goldberg, The Wall Street Journal.

I wanted to present the view that I believe most conservatives and some liberals — at least those who have taken time to formulate a position about the media — will agree with. That is the view best expressed by Bernard Goldberg in his books Bias and Arrogance. It has also been expressed by Bill Sammon of the Washington Times and, yes, even Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Goldberg, as you may know, is a former CBS News reporter and is also, at least according to himself, a life long Democrat (which, as he notes in the book, means his motivation has been from concerns for good journalism rather than political partisanship).

Essentially, Goldberg and others who agree with him, believe the media is not part of a vast conspiracy (right wing or left wing), but rather certain key non-conspiratorial factors lead to a general left leaning world view within the press. Broken down into their basic forms, they are:

1. Mindset: Why do journalists get into journalism? Many say that it is because they want to “make a difference” rather than to “report the facts” or “inform people so they can intelligently make up their own minds” (not that they imply they do not feel they are reporting the facts, simply that does not seem to be the main objective). This often seems to be a left leaning activist type mindset to challenge the “establishment.”
2. Education: The major journalism schools, such as Columbia School of Journalism, have professors who are generally acknowledged to be liberal either by themselves or others analyzing their records.
3. Location: Most of the major reporting takes place in two of the most liberal cities in America: New York and Washington, D.C. Even Republicans in New York are often liberal, perhaps to the point where they would vote for Democrats if they lived in Missouri and voted by the issues rather than by the name of the party. The press lives and works within these liberal cities and are likely to be at least somewhat impacted by the world view of the place they live in.
4. Colleagues: This is what causes some of the biases to perpetuate. Each generation of reporters presumably comes up under the leadership of the last (at least most of the time). So they are impacted by the methods and beliefs of those they work with and respect. Since the major networks generally do not tap outside talent (say, a bunch of conservative reporters in the Midwest, for instance), this creates a situation where the ideology that media members believe in continues through the ranks over time. This has a lot in common with argument three. This is not a case of being forced to believe a certain way so much as a case of being influenced over time by those around you.

The net result here is that in a poll that Mr. Goldberg cites, from the late eighties or early nineties, approximately 10% of media correspondents in, I believe it was Washington D.C., who voted in the 1984 election said they voted for President Ronald Reagan. This provides a very stark example of how bias could occur without any conspiracy, simply because there are not enough opposing voices in the media to call into question common beliefs and assumptions of that group.

Thus, for example, if it turns out that [it was still questionable when I originally wrote this — I meant to post this several days ago] Ret. Lt. Col. Bill Burkett was the producer of the documents, a group composed mostly of liberals might be less prone to questioning the credibility of Mr. Burkett (if he says what they assume to be the truth — that President Bush lied about his National Guard record) than a group composed with a strong mix of liberals and conservatives. This isn't accusing liberals of anything — people just see what they want to see. Fox News is good proof of that on the conservative side.

Now let me slip in one bit of defense here, because I know the common objection to this position: “The media sure gave Clinton a hard time.” That is true, but the thing is, that does not conflict with this theory. Remember, this argument suggests that the media is generally biased because of the views of the individuals in it, not by a top-down conspiracy that forces the issue. Thus, if President Clinton could be used as a vehicle for a journalist to gain fame and a glowing promotion that only a breaking story could provide, that will probably override even their political leanings. Everyone wants to get the big story. Bill Sammon, on the other hand, argues he feels the media felt “betrayed” by the Clinton Administration since most of them presumably voted for President Clinton and then they had to watch different scandals occur. I do not agree with that latter theory, but I present it in addition to the former to show that there are several ways to explain the press's treatment of the former president without explaining away a liberal bias.