Pages Navigation Menu

Defending WFB

Posted by on Aug 28, 2009 in Conservatism, public square, WFB, William F. Buckley | 0 comments

Cheers to the author of a letter to ‘The Atlantic’ a while back, which responded to an article that seemed to debase William F. Buckley.  The letter was published in the September, 2009 edition:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/letters

“Garry Wills’ article on William F. Buckley had much potential, but left one with a profound sense of regret. Instead of any posthumous homage, there was an inescapable theme that Wills simply wanted to have the last intellectual and ideological word. What a shame WFB is unable to respond.

Wills effectively debunked any notions that WFB was a social, ideological or intellectual snob. Why the need to convey a sense that WFB lacked intellectual rigor, or a sound dedication to the English language in the process? For example, the etymology of oxymoron may indeed fit Wills’ description of it in Greek. However, most dictionaries, and even H.W. Fowler’s usage of the term, bear out WFB’s meaning.

It is dispiriting to witness the ongoing efforts of those who benefited most from WFB’s confidences and friendship, to debase him and the indelible mark he left on modern conservatism. For if nothing else, WFB advocated meaningful dialogue from all sides of an issue to hone the ideas being shaped in the public square.”

Read More

The Battle of Ideas

Posted by on Aug 26, 2009 in administration, capitalism, Conservatism, GOP, ideology, Mtv, Socialism | 0 comments

I was going through some emails today and came across a great one from someone who has genuine concerns about the direction of our ideals.  The concern surrounding government or private ownership of business is real.  Our current national debate over healthcare and the public option, and looking back at the corporate bailouts in exchange for government ownership proves the point for concern.  Where are we headed?  Does the current Administration only favor private ownership or self government only when the public refuses to have it any other way?

Here’s the email….what do you think?

“So im becoming frustrated.
 
I can’t comprehend the huge difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoints. I believe it is natural for people to have fundamental differences in their beliefs, but it is coming to the point where the gap in beliefs is so wide and the sides are so angry that it is ripping this country apart.
 
Is it that one side is blind or uneducated? Are they stupid? I’m sure that liberals think we are stupid, but when I rationalize my own thoughts and values, I cannot see how their view points are in any way correct. I see it as a fast track to socialism……but I talk to more and more people who are OK with socialistic ideas. Is this just a sign of the times? Is America becoming so lazy that the majority no longer want to work for their success? Do we all just want to sit around and wait for a handout?
 
However, the liberals don’t see it as a hand out. Do they really believe that this is good policy or is there a higher motivation? The liberals in charge have money, perhaps more money than conservatives. SO what is their motivation? Are they really so brilliant to prey off the [needy] in society, empowering the[m] and using them for votes and policy change which makes those in charge richer? Or are the leaders (Obama, Pelosi, etc) really this naïve? 
 
The liberals are now so empowered that they are using Rush Limbaugh as the face of the GOP, and its working. This leads me to believe that, while conservative beliefs are correct, that the GOP leaders have no idea what they are doing. It also leads me to believe that the MTV/Reality show world is winning. The media and mainstream society conducts full assaults on all conservative beliefs and wins……….is there hope for our beliefs or will this cycle continue?

Read More

Senator Graham and Judge Sotomayor

Posted by on Jul 15, 2009 in Confirmation, Conservatism, Lindsey Graham, Sotomayor | 0 comments

We should all applaud Senator Graham for asking Judge Sotomayor the tough questions during her confirmation hearings. Rather than gloss over the questioning on a nominee who is all but certain to be confirmed, the Senator has done a great job in allowing Americans to gain insight into the predispositions and judicial philosophy of the Judge. He particularly asked the tough questions on social issues that create tension in the hearing room, since the topics pertain to issues being sanitized with political correctness. e.g. abortion, gun rights

More importantly, Senator Graham has not only asked the tough questions, but he has done so in a fair and congenial manner. This benefits the effectiveness of the questioning and supports the integrity of the values underpinning the questions. His efforts benefit the citizens of South Carolina, and the rest of us in America who wish we had a conservative Senator.

Read More

Supreme Decision

Posted by on Jun 1, 2009 in Confirmation, Conservatism, President Obama, Sotomayor, Supreme Court, White House | 0 comments


Is Judge Sotomayor the right pick for the U.S. Supreme Court?  I haven’t decided yet, since there are so many of her viewpoints, prior decisions and policy stances to consider.  Is she a conservative, probably not.  Did she really save baseball?  Maybe so.  But with all of these things to consider, let’s hope the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee does not cave to pressure from the White House to quickly confirm the judge.  

There are almost four months standing between this point in time and the start of the Supreme Court’s next session in October, 2009.  That provides plenty of time to allow the Senate, and America, to really look at Judge Sotomayor’s background and experience.  If the judge can explain some of her positions that are problematic to conservatives, let’s allow time for an explanation and full consideration of her views prior to a confirmation vote.  
For example, I am very interested in hearing her explanation as to why a white male judge is not qualified to objectively decide a discrimination matter.  I am also interested in hearing the judge’s explanation for her videotaped statement where she implied her endorsement to judge made law and social policy.  
Are the Democrats entitled to appoint a probable left leaning judge based on the 2008 election results?  Absolutely.  Are they entitled to quick Senate confirmation, devoid of considered study of a judge’s prior decisions, policy preferences and overall judicial philosophy?  Absolutely not.
Read More

Justice and Bipartisanship

Posted by on May 7, 2009 in Bipartisanship, Conservatism, Obama, Supreme Court | 0 comments

With the looming retirement of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Souter, President Obama has another opportunity to court true bipartisanship.  (no pun intended)  The detractors to bipartisanship will say that the Democrats won the 2008 Presidential election, and to the victor, the spoils.  Indeed.  The victory certainly provides President Obama the right to nominate whomever he chooses.  But there remain two important considerations, among others.  

First, the next U.S. Supreme Court nominee will need to pass scrutiny in the Senate.  The Democrats control the Senate, and have an even stronger influence on the Senate Judiciary Committee with the addition of Arlen Specter to the party.  However, Supreme Court nominations are closely watched and heartily debated on both sides of the political spectrum.  
Second, if President Obama stifles conservative input on the nomination and confirmation process, bipartisanship will be proven a mirage.  This will have a negative impact on public opinion and involve some political capital cost to the President.  Especially if the issue provides the Republicans with additional ammunition to chip away at the Democrat majority in 2010.
Read More

Winning the War on Terror With the CIA

Posted by on Apr 28, 2009 in CIA, Conservatism, Democrats, Interrogation, President Obama, War on Terror | 0 comments

Why are the Democrats (and some Republicans) creating a straw man over the CIA interrogation methods?  Is it because they believe that captured suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathizers deserve treatment in accord with the Geneva Conventions?  That does not seem to be the case.  The reason, I submit, is because they want to deflect attention away from President Obama learning his foreign policy on-the-job.  
Has President Obama’s policy of engagement brought Iran or North Korea to the negotiating table to stop their nuclear programs?  No.  Has he been able to get the Russians to tone down their nationalistic sabre rattling over the issue of former Soviet satellites entering NATO?  No; instead he allowed the Russians to pin nuclear warhead reduction talks to a dismantling of the U.S. European missile shield.  
But don’t worry about those issues.  Instead, concentrate on the perceived sins of the past committed by those working on the intelligence fronts in the War on Terror.  Let’s judge the methods used in the successful effort to stop attacks against America from the safe armchair of hindsight.  

Entertaining the straw man created by the left leads to an unavoidable problem.  The problem is that the Democrats knew of the CIA interrogation methods well before such knowledge was politically convenient.  So the straw man could be knocked down in both directions, harming those who created it, as well as those who simply worked to win the War on Terror.  

The Wall Street Journal had a great Op-Ed piece regarding the political amnesia issue.  Check it out.
Read More