Saturday, January 27, 2007
Random Musings for the Week of January 27, 2007
This week has not been necessarily an action packed on, but three interesting items to discuss: The Iraq War Resolutions, the March for Life and the 34th Ann. Of Rowe, and the National Review Institute gathering in Washington, D.C.
A Correction: Apparently after some investigative reporting we now know that Barak Obama did not attend a Madrassa school, but an Islamic school. For some reason I was given the idea that Barak had called it a Madrassa, but he had not. So, please take last week’s comments with that change. It is a still a question about why it took him a week to answer to the charge, and why he keeps telling everyone he was never a Muslim, when he was clearly raised as one in Indonesia. Again the question for me is not one of whether he was or was not, but openness and honesty and pride in one’s background.
The Iraq War Resolution – Well, the week ended without a clear resolution from the Senate. Oh wait, yes there was. It is not the Biden statement, or the Warner statement, or the McCain statement, or the Kerry statement. It was the 81-0 vote for General Petraeus. Look Senators, if you disagreed with the policy of the surge, then you needed to and should have voted against the architect of the plan. You didn’t. So now all you are doing is throwing a temper tantrum. You put the man in the position to carry out his plan, so now do it.
If you are truly against the war, if you think we have lost and cannot win, the moral thing to do is vote against the general, and vote to defund the war. Go on record. Senator Russ Finegold has done this. Congressman Murtha has essentially done the same. Show some integrity – and that goes for both sides, Republican and Democrat.
On a related note, for the period leading up to the election and then from the election until the President announced his plan, we heard, “Bush has not changed direction, he isn’t doing what it takes to win.” Well, this new surge plus change in rules of engagement is a change. So the President does what you want and you oppose him. Well, the answer that should be said to the Senators and Congressmen opposed to the surge – what do you want us to do? Do you want us to win? Well, what do you suggest?
Look, I do not believe in giving total allegiance to “expertise,” but is it not bizarre that after General Petraeus said, “This is how to win,” and, you voted for him, that people like Senator Obama, a man who has been a lawyer, law teacher, and politician, now claims to know more about gaining victory in a war than a man dedicated to the study of warfare? Hmm, who should we listen to? General Petraeus or Senator Obama, Feingold, Snowe, and company?
Look, I know most of you are not fond of this war – truthfully, no one is really “fond” of any war, but we can win this, we need to win, for our country and equally importantly, for the Iraqi people. Yes, they have to help, but we have to stand with them. Come on Senate – either say we don’t care about victory or the Iraqi people or do what is right and support what the Generals (and company) have advised is the best chance to bring that victory (oh, by the way, it seems that the insurgency was already weakening at the end of the last year, so we can do this).
Side note – regular readers know that I am a huge Hugh Hewitt fan, but this week I think he may have gone a bit into hyperventilation. While I support the pledge he has up (http://www.hughhewitt.com) to not send any money for the re-election of Senators who vote against the surge, I think he is wrong about the message that these votes send to our enemy. The fact is they already believe that we are a divided country with one foot out of Iraq. These different resolutions, while hideous and I believe demoralizing to our troops, cannot give any more support to the enemy. If they know anything about our country, if the surge begins to work every politicians (except for the died in the wool Dennis Kucinich folks) will suddenly claim, “we were for the surge and it is our being hard nosed that it made it work.” In other words, if we start to win, the enemy will see their support in the US dry up, and they know that. So, while I will sign the pledge, the truth is that Hugh is overly sensitive to the idea of giving hope to the enemy.
The March for Life – The Roe decision at 34 – Like most Christians I am pro-life, however I think to make abortion illegal tomorrow is both unrealistic and potentially dangerous, because people have come to “count on abortions.” I want to see a phased in end to abortion.
That said, our family is particularly touched by Roe because my wife was an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy, but was born on January 10, 1973. So, we are strongly anti-Roe. As we see today with medical technology, not only are babies viable at an earlier and earlier age, but the pictures from within the womb make it clear we can no longer say, “hey, its just a blob of tissues.” I think that holds out a lot of hope that hearts and minds are being changed and that we will be seeing abortion seen as immoral as slavery (of course there are still millions of people in slavery around our world).
Anyways, the March for Life this week once again was a statement that many American are not just indifferent to the issue but passionate for the lives of the most vulnerable in our world. In the past 34 years Christians and other pro-life individuals have stepped up, creating crisis pregnancy centers, taking in unwed mother, and aiding in adoptions of hard to adopt children and babies. I would hope that everyone can see this March and say, “If nothing else, I hope that abortion goes away because no one chooses that option in the future.”
On a related note, one of the most aborted group in America today are babies with Downs Syndrome. We have been blessed with three “normal” children, with relatively great health. So, I cannot understand the heartbreak and gut-wrenching decision for those who, receiving a diagnosis of Downs feel as if abortion is the right answer (I do wonder if those aborted babies would want to be aborted or be Down Syndrome members of our society). But after reading George Will’s article in Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720750/, about his own son Jon speaks volumes for the beauty of life, even lives that many of us consider “lesser.”
A world where life is welcomed and cared for is a world we can all hope and pray for daily.
The National Review Institute Conservative Summit – Look, my favourite site on the web is the Corner (corner.nationalreview.com), well, maybe http://www.Lileks.com, and so I was really disappointed that I could not go to Washington, D.C. to attend the summit (I cry East Coast bias).
Fortunately the panel discussion from Friday night was broadcast on CSPAN this afternoon, and it was fantastic. And here is the interesting thing – the best and I think most interesting voices in conservatism are all women. Look at the people on this panel –
Kate O’Beirne – The editor of National Review
Mona Charen – the conservative columnist (an a regular on Jewish World Review), and one of my longtime favourites.
Moderator – Kathleen Jean Lopez, the National Review Online Editor
Michelle Malkin – Blogger and columnist (most well known for make a defense of internment of Japanese in World War II).
Laura Ingraham – Radio Talk Show Host (I think she is #4 or something like that in audience in the country)
It was a stimulating discussion, even when I disagreed with their viewpoints. And this panel points to two of the main reasons why I am a conservative politically. First, most of the good ideas and the new idea are in the conservative realm. I watched a number of the left wing groups meeting this past fall on CSPAN as well, and what they said can be put in two categories – Bush is an idiot and if people were just good all our plans would work. Hmm, no wonder the Liberal end of the political spectrum is devoid of serious suggestions to the world’s problems.
While the panel did occasionally take shots at the Left (sarcasm is our national art form after all), they talked about real ideas, and most importantly, about taking a stand for the right things even if they mean you lose an election. What an idea! Taking a stand regardless of whether it wins.
But the second big thing about this panel was that these women are on the panel and they are all highly successful. Conservatives reward those success. Look at National Review, the flagship of the Conservative movement. Both Kate O’Beirne and Kathryn Jean Lopez do a fantastic job, and have earned their position. Our culture has taken to seeing success and greatness as something that can cause envy or a feeling for those who are not successful of “failure.” Of course success creates envy – that is because we are sinful human creatures who like to think we are the best at everything. As for feeling a failure, when you do not succeed at something, it is failure. Liberals want to create the great leveling by avoiding any mention of the tops and focusing on the roots. Conservatives, while sometimes equating success with moral goodness, at least allow people to become their best. Given the choice, I think I will honour success.
Anyways, if you can catch a replay on CSPAN do it, regardless of your political persuasion.
