Joe Politic

2003-12-02T10:04:00.000-08:00

Always playing politics

Senators Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed, Democrats from New York and Rhode Island, returned from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday and both were critical of the Bush Administration.

"We can't forget that death and destruction to America came from Afghanistan," Clinton said, speaking about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "That is where the face of international terrorism resides."

That's what we've heard from Democrats since before the war. What's interesting is that Clinton is saying this now. Did she not feel that way before she took the trip? Did she learn that Bin Laden lived in Afghanistan while she was on the trip? She knew all these things before the war, but that didn't deter her from granting President Bush the authority to go to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is the same double-speak that we always hear from Clinton. She needs to support her base but doesn't want to turn off everyone else. What does her comment mean. Is she opposed to the war in Iraq? If she was, why did she vote in favor of it? And if she is in favor of the war, why would she say what she said?

It's obvious that she is nothing more than a conniving politician who cares more about gaining power than standing up for her beliefs. Clinton also said she worries "the election timetable [in Iraq] is being driven by our election" and that may be raising false expectations.

We must interpret that as meaning she wants the troops to stay longer, which again shows how her opinion changes. If President Bush said the troops must stay longer, she would say that he must get them home.

Hillary Clinton is scum, and anyone who cannot realize that she does not stand for principle is naive. If people want a two-faced, conniving politican, that's their choice. Most people don't want that though, and that's why Hillary will not run against an honest man in Geoirge W. Bush.

2003-12-01T15:12:00.000-08:00

Clark at it again

Trailing Howard Dean in the polls, Gen. Wesley Clark has decided to court the wing of the Democratic Party that cares more about hating Bush than about policy. As a way of doing this, Clark said that Bush has a plan to attack Syria and Lebanon after Iraq, emphasizing that the Bush Administration has not denied this allegation.

Once again though, Clark is wrong. The administration has denied this, most recently when Secretary of State Colin Powell took a trip to Damascus shortly after major combat operations in Iraq ended. Powell said he went there in order "to pursue diplomacy and mutual political efforts that both sides can be taking," adding that they talked "so the issue of war hostilities is not on the table."

If Clark does not consider that a denial, he’s either not smart enough to be president, misinformed or is simply lying.

I think it has to be lying. Clark is definitely smart. He finished first in his class at West Point, one of the toughest institutions to get into in the United States. Its also highly unlikely that he is misinformed. He knows people in the U.S. Army and the news business and has people working for him who are responsible for keeping him informed.

That leaves lying, something that Clark has become accustomed to since deciding to run for president. As reported on this blog, Clark lied about a call he got from the White House after Sept 11. Then he lied about Karl Rove not returning his phone class. Then he lied again several weeks ago, and now this. One would think such a blatant liar would not have a chance to win the White House, but look what happened before the younger Bush came to office.

2003-11-25T10:46:00.000-08:00

Judicial activism of the worst kind

The Supreme Court of the state of Massachusetts last week voted to legalize gay marriage in that state. The polls show that most people in Massachusetts, a liberal state, do not support gay marriage. Many believe this was a terrible decision made by liberal judges trying to override the publics beliefs. The governor of that state is considering creating a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. If this amendment passed, the activists on the bench could do nothing.

But some think the amendment is a bad idea, not because they disagree with the amendment but because they situation could be better handled by the legislature.

With the ruling, the government cannot make it illegal for states to marry same-sex couples, but it can, Dennis Teti writes, “instead of directly forbidding same-sex partners to marry, a federal marriage privilege protection measure would make it a criminal offense for state or local officials acting ‘under color of law’ to issue a marriage license to persons of the same sex. Constitutional authority to pass this measure comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, buttressed by the Republican Guarantee clause (S. 4 of Art. IV) and the Necessary and Proper clause (par. 18, S. 8 of Art. I). "

That may be a better way of solving the problem. But either way, something must be done. The will of the people cannot continue to be thwarted by activist judges. Most Americans feel that a marriage is between a man and a woman. What people do in their bedroom is up to them, and nobody has a right to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. However, society as a whole does not have to legally accept deviant sexual behavior and lifestyles. This ruling has gone too far, and the people will put an end to it one way or another.

2003-11-24T12:01:00.000-08:00

Life vs. death, not men vs. women

When President George W. Bush signed the new bill banning partial birth abortion, he did it surrounded by a bunch of men. Anne Quindlen of Newsweek and Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe, both liberal writers for liberal publications, pointed this out, insinuating that this is a battle of the sexes-- old men versus young women.

This is the argument that feminists have been making. Unfortunately for them, their argument is wrong. Seventy percent of women in the United States agree with President Bush that partial-birth abortion is inhumane and should be stopped. What difference does it make that no woman was on stage with him when he signed it? This bill speaks for most of the women in this country. Most agree with what he did, and therefore, it should make no difference whether zero or a hundred women went on stage with him.

The fact that this is even a story shows that people like Quindlen and Goodman and the rest of the feminists don't think of women as individuals, but as a group. They think that they can speak for them, which is not true. They speak for themselves only. Most people realize that and that is why their tactics will not work.

This is not a debate that’s pits men versus women. Its a debate between those who cherish life and those who don't, between people who believe in personal responsibility and those who don't. Goodman and Quindlen are on the wrong side of this debate and no matter how much they try to polarize women against men, it will not work.

2003-11-16T08:50:00.000-08:00

Media won't show their own stupidity

Certain issues are supposed to be above partisanship. National security is one of those issues. Unfortunately, Democrats don't see it that way. Conservative commentator Sean Hannity has discovered a memo sent to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Agency, telling them how to make Republicans look bad by investigating prewar intelligence.

The contents are so disturbing that Democratic Sen. Zell Miller called them the "first cousin of treason."

As disturbing as the memo is though, the media coverage of its discovery may be even more disturbing. The mainstream media (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) has hardly covered the story.

Interestingly, this comes only weeks after the news organizations gave heavy coverage to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s memo outlining his concerns about the war on terror.

Seeing Rumsfeld's memo was refreshing. It shows that he has the same concerns as the rest of us. The Democrats memo was the opposite. It shows that Democrats are more concerned about making Republicans look bad than they are serving the people.

Why would the media focus on one memo and hardly mention the other? Huge Hewitt has three theories. First is that the mainstream media is full of left-leaning reporters and editors. Second is that reporters don't like being upstaged by television and radio commentators like Hannity. Both of those are possible but not likely.

Hewitt's third theory makes the most sense. By acknowledging the memo, the press is acknowledging that what they have been reporting in recent months is a set-up job. We keep hearing about the administration’s bad motives and misleading comments. This memo makes the reporters who covered this story look like manipulated amateurs. It highlights their gullibly, and shows that they can get conned into saying exactly what the Democrats want them to.

Its pretty funny when you think about it. But honest reporters should swallow their pride and give the Democrats memo the coverage it deserves.

2003-11-11T08:49:00.000-08:00

Pro-Choice? You must support vouchers then
I don't like the term pro-choice when it refers to abortion. Its simply a nicer way of saying anti-life. The term implies that without abortion, there is no choice. That is completely false. First, there is the choice to have sex when you know you cannot support a child. Then there is the choice to put the baby up for adoption, and finally there is the choice to become a responsible person and raise the child responsibly. So when people label abortion foes as anti-choice, that doesn't make much sense. There are plenty of choices other than terminating a potential human being.

But what really bothers me about the term is that most people who claim to be pro-choice are anti-choice when it comes to everything else. Take vouchers for example. The left hates vouchers because the teachers' unions contribute large amounts of money to the Democratic party. Howard Dean has already come out against them, while President Bush supports school choice. Teachers hate vouchers because with them in place, they, like everybody else in the population, will actually be held accountable for their work.

Without vouchers, poor children in failing schools are stuck. They have no choice. Private schools, which are better than public schools, are too expensive for them. The poor schools, since they have to employ the same teachers and receive the same amount of money, do not improve. Its a vicious cycle that does more to keep poor children poor for the rest of their lives than anything else. Education is the key to upward mobility, and by preventing vouchers, the liberals are preventing poor students, especially minorities, from moving up the social and economic ladder.

The left's argument is that taking money away from public schools hurt the public schools. This argument sounds good, but its based on a false premise, that money is the problem with public schools. Its not. In Florida, the cost per year per public school student in $5,600. Private schools charge about half that, but get much better results. That's because their teachers are held accountable. If children consistently fail, someone has to answer to it. The same is not true in public schools. The left does not even want to test students, which shows they do not even care if students consistently fail. Teachers pass students on because they are old, even though they know the child is not qualified.

Students have no choice but to move on, and when they get out they are not prepared for life on their own. They usually end up in poverty or in jail, and produce more children who will do the same. There is only one way that this can be stopped, and that is by giving these poor students a choice. Anyone opposed to that is truly anti-choice, because the students (children who are not responsible for being in that position in the first place) actually have no other choices.

2003-11-10T12:47:00.000-08:00

Last week, President Bush signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion, also called late term abortions, after the U.S. Senate passed the bill 64-34 and the House passed it 281-142.
For those of you who follow national politics, that was a landslide passage in the Senate, which won’t even let Bush's judicial nominees get a vote without a filibuster.
The country feels the same way. About 80 percent of those polled agreed with the ban. If the mother is in serious danger of health complications she can still get a partial birth abortion under the ban, and most children naturally born prematurely at that point in the pregnancy usually survive. Most people, regardless of how they feel about abortion, know this is a grotesque procedure, and know the line must be drawn somewhere.
Unfortunately, the Democratic presidential candidates don't agree. None voted in favor of the ban. This is no surprise, considering that all nine are fighting to pander to the extreme left. That is what Howard Dean has done and its worked well. The candidates will do whatever it takes to win the nomination and will try to appear more mainstream when the general election draws near.
But this hurts their chances. People don't want a president that does not respect life. Most Democratic presidents in the past have agreed that abortion should be rare and done early. These Democrats think there should be abortion on demand, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is or whether its needed for health reasons.
This is just another example of the Democratic party killing itself by moving too far to the left, and its another example of it pandering to special interest groups like the feminists. As a Republican who respects all human life I could not be happier. A gruesome procedure has been stopped and the Democratic presidential candidates look bad in the process.

2003-11-04T06:50:00.000-08:00

Expert Interview

I interviewed Ryan Hurl, a professor of political science at the University of Florida. Hurl teaches American National Government and follows national politics very closely. He is conservative, which is rare among college professors. The interview took place on Nov. 4, 2003 in Hurl's office in Anderson Hall.

Joe Manzo: I know its early, but who do you think will win the Democratic nomination for president?
Ryan Hurl: It's difficult to say. So much can happen in the course of a year. At this point in 1991, nobody knew Bill Clinton was going to be the winner. It does seem to me that Howard Dean has a lot of momentum. I think he has the support of the activists in the Democratic Party, which is crucial for the primary. The question is whether or not people become scared of Dean's foreigh policy position. The main issue of this election is going to be foreign policy. They might get scared that someone taking an isolationist position like Dean can't actually win the general election.

JM: With last weeks positive news about the economy, will the Democratic candidates stop talking about economics?
RH: They're going to keep riding that horse for a bit longer. A single quarter of good economic news does not signal much for the long term. They'll still focus on the disparity of the tax cuts and jobs. They'll stil focus on the economy, but they are really hoping that Americans's dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq increases. They'll make that their issue, but I think that's a losing issue for them.

JM: Which of the candidates has the best chance to win the general election, if any?
RH: Frankly, I can't really see any of them winning. Look at what Bill Clinton was able to do in 1992, basically running as a centrist candidate. He had immense political carisma. None of the nine candidates are as moderate as Clinton or have a combination of moderationa and carisma. Joe Lieberman has the policies that could win a general election, but he doesn't have the appeal of Clinton. There are others. Al Sharpton is funny, but from a policy perspective he's not mainstream.

All are either too radical, like Dean, or personally unappealing or outdated, like Dick Gephardt.

JM: Is the field set right now, or could Hillary Clinton or Al Gore still jump in?
RH: I think Al Gore realizes that if he couldn't win in 2000 he won't in 2004. There were no more auspiciuos circomstances for a Democrat to win than in 2000. He couldn't win then so he certainly couldn't win in 2004.

Hillary is interesting. I think it's probably too late. She would have advantages. She wouldn't have a problem rainsing money. There would be a huge amount of media attention and activist support. But she's such a devisive figure that she realizes she wouldn't win a general election. I would say no, she won't run. I'm sure she's considered it, but she'll wait for 2008.

2003-11-03T12:17:00.000-08:00

Dems in trouble

Things just keep getting worse for the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls. After attacking President Bush's tax cuts for most of the campaign, the country got great economic news. The economy went up more than 7 percent, the largest increase since Ronald Reagan’s presidency. And the prospects for the future are even better. Experts think the economy will continue to improve. Looks like Bush’s tax cuts worked after all.

By the time next year's election rolls around, Bush will be untouchable on the economy. How can you fault a man who gave Americans more of their own money and in the process turned around the Clinton recession.

They can't attack him on social spending, because he has spent just as much as Democrats would have. The candidates can't attack Bush on homeland security because the United States has not been attacked on our soil despite two major military victories. Democrats can't even attack Bush on the environment, because had they passed his proposals, the deadly fires in San Diego could have been prevented.

The only thing left for Democrats to focus on is foreign policy, and most Americans agree with Bush that we must finish the job over in Iraq regardless of the cost.

Making matters even worse, some Democrats won't even support their own candidates. Democrat Zell Miller, a senator and former governor of Georgia, wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today saying he backs President Bush. Miller is one of the best-known Democrats in the South, and with him on board, Bush can start a Democrats for Bush campaign, similar to the one Reagan had when he won 49 states in 1984.

The way things appear to be going now, Bush might even be able to top that with a 50 state sweep, once again proving that the Democratic party as we know it is dying a slow and painful death.

2003-10-28T08:15:00.000-08:00

Debate ideas, not credentials

The Democratic candidates for President debated again Sunday night. The debates so far had been filled with one-liners and lacked substance, but in Sunday’s debate the candidates got a little more specific.

Joe Lieberman and John Kerry got into a little sparing match over the war in Iraq.

Both candidates voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war, but when it came time to fund that war, Kerry voted against it.

Lieberman voted to appropriate the $87 billion the Bush asked for, saying that getting the job done in Iraq should be a top priority and that no matter how much it costs, we cannot back out now.

In the debate, Lieberman asked Kerry why he went against Bush when it came to funding the war. Kerry didn’t answer his question. Instead, he said that Lieberman can't really talk about war since he never served, and since Kerry knows whats it like to be on the front lines of a bad war, he said, he knows how to handle this situation.

Kerry's service is admirable, but it doesn’t make him any more qualified to become U.S. President. Abraham Linclon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan were not soldiers and they led the United States through the Civil War, World War I, World War II and the Cold War.

Meanwhile, bad presidents like Zachary Taylor and Ulyssus Grant were former soldiers.

Kerry should debate the issues instead of citing his military service. Just because Lieberman did not serve in Vietnam does not mean he can't lead the military better than Kerry can.

2003-10-26T10:40:00.000-08:00

Chomsky’s Wrong

Liberal speaker Noam Chomsky spoke at the O’Connell Center Tuesday night in front a large audience. Chomsky is a well-known social commentator. He has written numerous books, most of which blame the greatest nation in the world, the United States, for all the world's problems.

Many in the audience, which included students, faculty members and Gainesville residents, approved of Chomsky comments. Others were there just to get the extra credit some professors offered for attending.

The Alligator covered the story on the front page of it's Wednesday edition. In that story, the writer said she could not find anyone to counter Chomsky's arguments. I find that hard to believe considering that I personally knew about 20 people that went to the speech and disagreed with Chomsky. But we'll put the Alligator's bias (the writer also said that Ronal Reagan was unpopular when he left office. Is that why his Vice President became the first VP elected President since shortly after Kennedy got shot?) aside and use this space to challenge one of Chomsky's idiotic claims.

Chomsky said the U.S. is trying to take over the world and pretty much blamed us for the problems in the Muslim world. Chomsky must have ignored the 67 percent of people in Iraq who are happy the U.S. finally got rid of Saddam Hussein and don't want to U.S. to give power to the United Nations. He must have ignored the Afghan women who can now go to school and leave the house when they want because of U.S. intervention.

The U.S. has protected a lot of countries in desperate times, including France in World War II and South Korea in the 1950s, and we never took over those countries; we never dominated those countries. We only secured a better way of life in the future for the people of those countries.

But Chomsky doesn't use historical evidence, he simply sides against the U.S. every time, regardless of who the enemy is. There is a lot of fighting in the world right now, and of coarse Chomsky thinks that's America's fault. But any rational person could see that’s not the case.

Islam is a religion of peace. That may be the politically correct thing to say, but its not true. Muslims are fighting Christians in Sudan, Hindus in India, Jews in Israel and the government in Chechnya. Their countries are led by tyrants. People are not free. The quality of life is as bad as anywhere else on earth. Women are treated like dogs. The entire Muslim world has not made any advances in technology, education or self-rule in any of our lifetimes.

The U.S. has done the exact opposite. We've made the whole world richer. Americans live in peace and serve as an example to the rest of the world that democracy does work. We've given more money to the rest of the world than any other country in history, and United States defeated the evil empires of Germany and the Soviet Union.

The war between the U.S. and the Muslim world is a war of good versus evil, freedom versus oppression. By taking the opposing side in this, Chomsky has proven that he is nothing more than an anti-American opportunist who makes a living by appealing the losers in our society.

Chomsky lives and prospers off the system we have here in America. If its as bad as he says it is, why doesn’t he leave. He wouldn’t be missed.

2003-10-21T09:38:00.000-07:00

Using our money for politically biased news

Last week, Fox News commentator and best-selling author Bill O'Reilly went on National Public Radio to speak to talk show host Terry Gross. The purpose of the interview was to promote O'Reilly’s latest book, Who's Looking Out For You, which hit store only a few weeks ago and has sold hundreds of thousands of copies already.

But instead of talking about O'Reilly book, Gross continually asked questions about Al Franken's latest book, which says O’Reilly is a liar. Everybody knows Franken is a redical left-wing mud-slinger who has made it his life’s work to discredit O'Reilly and other conservatives. He had an interview with Gross two weeks ago in which he talked extensively about his book. O'Reilly should have been given the same privilege.

NPR Ombudsman Jeffery Dvorkin agrees. He said the interview was biased and unfair.

“I agree with the listeners who complained about the tone of the interview,” Dvorkin said. “Her questions were pointed from the beginning. She went after O'Reilly using critical quotes from the Franken book and a New York Times book review.”

O'Reilly finally walked out on the interview when Gross was about to read a criticism of his book from People magazine, but Gross read the quote anyway without O'Reilly being there to respond.

“I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview,” Dvorkin said. “It may have illustrated the 'cultural wars' that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias.”

NPR's own ombudsman said the interview confirmed a liberal bias. Anyone who heard the interview, except extreme partisans, must feel the same way. And that the big issue here.

If a network wants to be biased that's fine. There is plenty of competition in the media. People who don't like the bias won't listen, and those that do will be entertained.

All Americans should not have to pay for this bias though. Our tax dollars don't go to help Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, but they do for biased programs like this. I was personally offended by this interview, but I still had to subsidize it. Why should that happen?

Al Gore and other liberals always complain about not having a liberal radio channel. They should by NPR. They could continue the bias that already exists at that network and we would no longer have to pay for it.

2003-10-19T10:14:00.000-07:00

Attacking a success
Last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) announced an economic plan he hopes will help get him to the White House. The so-called moderate wanted to increased taxes on the highest tax bracket to nearly 40 percent.
Lieberman thinks the rich should be paying their fair share, but what’s worrisome is what Lieberman considers rich. Families that make a combined $150,000 a year will be in the highest bracket, and every family will making more than $250,000 will pay an extra 5 percent.
Lieberman is not the only one pushing tax increases. John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean also support them. The Democrats need something to attack the Bush Administration about. They can't attack them on foreign policy because most of the American public agrees with Bush in that area.
So most of the have chosen the economy and that should make Republicans happy.
The economy is on the rise. Last week, 10 of the 12 Federal Reserve districts reported growth and corporate earnings are up. More money is flowing into the stock market and unemployment declined in September. The Congressional Budget Office even lowered its deficit estimate from $401 billion to $374 billion.
President Clinton's economic policy led us to the recession that Bush had to deal with. The current president got us out of it in a short amount of time and future looks bright. The public knows the economy does not change over night. They see its moving in the right direction. By next year, it will be even better.
The more the Democrats attack Bush's economic policy, the more it will hurt them next November.

2003-10-13T09:24:00.000-07:00

The Recall Lesson

California Governor Gray Davis got recalled last week and Arnold Schwarzenegger destroyed Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante in the election to replace him.

The defeat was a terrible one not only for Davis but for the entire Democratic Party. The state is heavily Democratic, and even if the people didn't like Davis they could vote for Bustamante, a Hispanic.

Not only did they vote for Schwarzenegger as replacement, the former bodybuilder and conservative Tom McClintock got about 60 percent of the vote. That's total domination.

But the Democrats are trying their best to spin this horrible defeat in their favor. They say the backlash was not against Davis because he did a bad job, its against incumbents in general, making President Bush and the rest of the incumbent Republicans succeptible to the same backlash.

The rest of the country saw something completely different. It was a backlash against politicians who pander to special interest groups. Davis signed bills endorsed by trial lawyers, environmentalists and labor unions that were not good for the state but good for his campaign contributors. Citizens are tied of that.

People want politicians who do what's best for the them, not what's best for their reelection campaign. This is the lesson the Democrats should learn from the recall. If their presidential candidates try to pander to interest groups they will go down in defeat just like Davis.

2003-10-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

Critics of the Iraq war continue to say that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair exaggerated intelligence saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Their justification for these accusations is that the United States has not found these weapons yet.
Now some are using inspector David Kay's unclassified report in Saddam Hussein’s WMD program as more justification because he said he has not found stockpiles of weapons. Kay's report was released last week and stories about it appeared in most major newspapers. Most of the stories talked about the unfound stockpiles.
However, if you look at the report more deeply, it proves that Bush and Blair were justified in going to war over WMDs.
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."
United Nations Resolution 1441 said that Iraq must comply with weapons inspectors or face consequences. It did not say that they must have those weapons. Kay's report proves that the Iraq government did not comply. Thus the war was justified.
Unfortunately, you wouldn't get that impression by reading the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times. That’s unfortunate, but those who have knowledge of why we went to war (because Iraq violated Resolution 1441) know the action was justified.

2003-10-12T09:34:00.000-07:00

Critics of the Iraq war continue to say that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair exaggerated intelligence saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Their justification for these accusations is that the United States has not found these weapons yet.
Now some are using inspector David Kay’s unclassified report in Saddam Hussein's WMD program as more justification because he said he has not found stockpiles of weapons. Kay's report was released last week and stories about it appeared in most major newspapers. Most of the stories talked about the unfound stockpiles.
However, if you look at the report more deeply, it proves that Bush and Blair were justified in going to war over WMDs.
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."
United Nations Resolution 1441 said that Iraq must comply with weapons inspectors or face consequences. It did not say that they must have those weapons. Kay's report proves that the Iraq government did not comply. Thus the war was justified.
Unfortunately, you wouldn’t get that impression by reading the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times. That’s unfortunate, but those who have knowledge of why we went to war (because Iraq violated Resolution 1441) know the action was justified.

2003-10-06T11:58:00.000-07:00

As reported on this page earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh had to resign from ESPN because he said Donovan McNabb gets better treatment from the media because he is black.

Some people, including Gen. Wesley Clark, called the statements racist and called for his resignation. There are two problems with this. First, people are misusing the term "racist" and more importantly, there is a double standard as to who can make "racist" comments.

To understand this, people must first know what racism is. By definition, racism is the belief that people from one race are naturally superior to people of another race. What Limbaugh said in no way insinuated that his race was naturally superior to another race. Therefore, anyone who said his comment was racist is flat-out wrong. It was, by definition, not a racist comment.

But what's more important is the double standard. Dusty Baker, the manager of the Chicago Cubs, said earlier this summer that black players play better in the summer heat than white players because of their skin color. Baker was not asked to resign or even harshly criticized. His comment actually was racist though. It implied that blacks are naturally superior to whites at performing in the heat. By definition, that is racist.

The Cubs were right not to fire Baker because he is an experienced manager who knows what he's talking about. If he said it, there is probably some merit to it.

The point is that Limbaugh should not be treated worse for a statement that was not racist than a black man was for a statement that was racist. Some say black people have a right to speak about race, but white people do not. That's like saying you cannot talk about corporate fraud unless you've been victimized by it. That's ridiculous.

The double standard only causes more animosity and racism, and that must stop. Unfairly labeling comments as racist when they are not also must stop. People of all races should be treated fairly and all should able to speak about race, whether people are sensitive or not.

2003-10-02T15:38:00.000-07:00

Dialog is productive, name calling is not

Rush Limbaugh resigned from ESPN yesterday after many critics, including Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley Clark, called for his resignation.

Its pretty ironic that Democrats, who pretend to protect free speech, would ask for Limbaugh’s resignation for making so-called racist comments. You would think they would encourage dialog, so if what Limbaugh said really was racist, the public would know it.

Honest dialog is the only way to solve problems. Both parties explain their sides and whoever is right usual gets more support from the public. How are race issues supposed to be fixed if people can't speak honestly about it?

Limbaugh said the media exaggerated how good quarterback Donovan McNabb is because they want a black quarterback to succeed. Whether you think he is right or not, he did have a point that's worth debating.

Compare the treatment McNabb and Colts quarterback Peyton Manning. The media refers to Manning as a decent quarterback that can’t win a big game. He's never made it to the Super Bowl and didn't win the Southeastern Conference Championship in his four years as the starting quarterback for Tennessee. The argument that he is not a big game quarterback is legit, but why doesn't McNabb get the same treatment?

McNabb has played terribly in his two NFC Championship Games. As a four-year starter at Syracuse, he never won the Big East, even though Miami was on probation.

The Eagles lost McNabb for a large part of last season and they did just as good without him. Yet when the media talks about McNabb, they say he's one of the best players in the league, an MVP candidate.

Manning has thrown for more yards and touchdowns than McNabb each of the last three years. McNabb's winning percentage is slightly better, but he's also had a much better defense in Philadelphia.

Which quarterback is better is up to debate, but why do they get much different treatment from the media? That is the question everybody should be asking. That's the question Limbaugh's comment provoked. If Democrats and critics really wanted to end racism, they would have a serious discussion about it.

But instead they call Limbaugh a racist and ask for his resignation. Its not about free speech for Democrats, its about courting the black vote.

As long as the Democrats keep this attitude, racism will never end. Instead it will get worse, and all so the Democrats can get a few extra votes. Dialog is good, name calling and race baiting is not. Clark and the others need to realize that.

2003-09-29T11:02:00.000-07:00

Where have business owners' rights gone?

Maurice Clarett recently announced that he will sue the National Football League. Clarett wants to be eligible for the draft after graduating from high school two years ago. NFL rules do not allow a player to become draft eligible until three years after graduation.

This topic has and will continually be debated. Some people say he has a right to work-- others think it will hurt college football.

Clarett should not be allowed to go to the NFL, but not because of the reasons above.

Dick Vitale writes that Clarett needs to grow up. I agree. The NFL does not want players who are immature both mentally and physically. Clarett is both. He couldn't even get through a year of college football without getting in trouble. He could have been a Heisman candidate and helped Ohio State to a repeat national title and instead he got in trouble. He knew the rules and did not follow them anyway.

Physically, he missed half of his only season due to injury. If he can't get through a college season (11 or 12 games) healthy, how is he supposed to get through 16 games against bigger, stronger and more experienced players. He can't. He is not strong enough yet.

Clarett does have a right to work, just not in someone else's league. He can play in Canada or bag groceries at the supermarket. Nobody is preventing him from working.

The NFL should be able to protect itself. Youngsters going professional at too young an age has hurt the NBA and college basketball. Nobody has the “right” to infiltrate somebody else's organization. The law says that everyone should be treated equally, and under the NFL rules, they are.

Instead of worrying about getting into the league now, Clarett should growing up. If he doesn't, he won't last in the NFL regardless of when he gets there. As for the courts, they should let business owners do what is best for their business. Make him wait another year.

2003-09-28T15:16:00.000-07:00

Anyone watching the Democratic Presidential Debate last Thursday could see that none of the Democratic hopefuls have any good ideas. If they do, they certainly did not show it in the debate.

Instead of giving solutions to what the Democrats view as problems in America (an improving economy and a country less at risk of terrorism), the candidate simply used one-liners without giving answers of substance.

The one-liners include:

"Corporate America has lost touch with the average Americans' concern in this country,“ Gov. Howard Dean said.

"We have a crisis of confidence in this country," Rep. Dick Gephardt said .

"And that means . . . making certain that opportunity is kept alive in this country," Carol Moseley Braun said.

"If you look at the ports in this country, we're in disrepair," Rev. Al Sharpton said.

"We need to empower working people so that they have more voice, not less voice in this country," Sen. John Edwards said.

"Many Americans are feeling mugged by what is happening in this country," Sen. John Kerry said.

"The problems that exist on Wall Street today really go to the center of a debate in this country," Rep. Dennis Kucinich said.

Are there any solutions to any problems there? How 'bout at least an idea?

Democrats should be happy though, at least nobody was caught in a lie during the debate. As we wrote on this blog last week, Gen Wesley Clark has had trouble speaking the truth. Now Howard Dean is having trouble making up his mind. First, he said he would balance the budget in his first term, now he says he won’t.

How anyone could vote for one of these morons is beyond me. Its actually kind of humorous. But Republicans have nothing to worry about. People get excited about candidates they know nothing about, but when they see there is no substance behind it, they don’t vote for them. That’s what happened with Bill McBride in Florida. Everybody jumped on his bandwagon and then he got demolished by Jeb Bush.

2003-09-23T09:47:00.000-07:00

He's only been in the race for about a week, but Gen. Wesley Clark has been caught in a lie again.According to Newsweek's Harold Fineman, Clark said to Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver President Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Clark never did call Rove though, and the call logs prove that. Clark supporters may chalk this up to political naiveté. This is Clark's first run at political office, and as a retired General, he does have credibility.

I think there is a bigger issue here. Its about values. Apparently, Clark does not value the truth. As reported on this blog, Clark also lied about receiving a call after 9/11 from the White House telling him to connect Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks.

Trying to get support of the Bush-haters make sense for any Democratic candidate. They have hijacked the Democratic Party and have a lot of power. But lying to do that is not justified, and most Americans, except for a few radicals, agree with that.

The lies might not hurt Clark in the primaries and he still may win the Democratic nomination because the Bush-haters that will support him believe in lying to get what they want. But when Clark faces an honest President in the general election, the lies will come back to haunt him.

2003-09-21T09:28:00.000-07:00

Clark is not the answer

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has announced that he will run for president in 2004 as a Democrat. As a former military man, many in his party feel Clark is the only Democrat who can stand up to President Bush on foreign policy. Some have even compared him to Dwight D. Eisenhower, another former General who became a popular president.

But the Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti write why Clark should remind people more of President Clinton than President Eisenhower.

Despite leading 19 nations in Kosovo, the former Rhodes scholar from Arkansas is practically unheard of, just like Clinton was before he ran. The opposite was the case with Eisenhower in 1952 when he was the most well-known General in the United States.

But Clark is more like Clinton in a couple of more important ways. He believes in appeasing foreign murderers and has trouble telling the truth.

In 1994, Clark, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a mission to Bosnia “"ignored State Department warnings not to meet with Serb officials suspected of ordering deaths of civilians in a campaign known as ethnic cleansing." That official was Ratko Mladic was already a U.S. war-criminal accused of "artillery attacks on civilians in Sarajevo," the "razing of Muslim towns and villages," and random acts of "mass murder."

As we all remember, Clinton appeased an evil leader from North Korea, and that didn’t work.

But what will hurt Clark the most is that he’s a liar. He lied about the White House connecting Saddam Hussein to September 11. First he said he got a call from the White House saying to go on CNN and say the attacks were connected to Hussein. Then he said it came from a Canadian think tank, yet nobody’s been able to find what think tank he’s talking about.

From 1993 until 2001, the American people saw what having a liar in the White House felt like. They got tired of it, and that’s why Wesley Clark doesn’t have a chance.

2003-09-16T08:48:00.002-07:00

Yesturday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest federal court, which oversees the West Coast, voted to delay the recall election in California that was scheduled for October 7. The court ruled that since the voting machines in six districts can be confusing, so they must be replaced before the election.

As justification for its decision, the court cited the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, saying:

"No voting system is foolproof, of course, and the Constitution does not demand the use of best available technology. However, what the Constitution does require is equal treatment of votes cast in a manner that comports with the Equal Protection Clause. Like the Supreme Court in Bush, "[t]he question before [us] is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections." Rather, like the Supreme Court in Bush, we face a situation in which the United States Constitution requires "some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied."

Their decision is not final yet. The Supreme Court will likely here the case because, according to California law, the election must take place within a certain amount of time after the recall petition is submitted. That deadline comes on October 7, the day the election was supposed to take place.

Many, including Fox's Bill O'Reilly, believe that the appeals court's decision is pure partisanship from the librals on that court, and it will be overturned. I agree. The will of the people will be respected, despite these liberal judges' obstruction.

That would not be the first time the Supreme Court has had to step in and fix the mistakes of the 9th Circuit. In November, the Supreme Court overturned three 9th Circuit opinions on the same day. This is the same court that said saying the Pledge in school was unconstitutional.

Even if, or should I say when, they are overturned again, the election will go on as scheduled. But the people of California and the entire United States should take notice. Liberal judges are trying to legislate from the bench. If people like them get control of the Supreme Court, this country will be led by jdges with an agenda, not the people. These judges don't respect the will of the people (as the pledge ruling showed) or the constitution. All they respect are themselves and their agenda.

They must be stopped, and the only way that can happen now is by stoping Democratic obstruction when it comes to Bush's appointees. If the Democrats don't stop it, the people will, and they'll do it by electing more Republicans yet again.

2003-09-12T10:54:00.000-07:00

On September 11, 2001, the world changed forever. Americans finally realized how bad the situation in the Middle East was and that we needed to do something about it. President Bush and his cabinet did just that. The United States invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban. Then they invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, a vicious dictator.

Unfortunately, bin Laden has not been caught, but his terrorist network has been partially dismantled and they have not committed another attack on U.S. soil.

But the job is not complete yet. Iraq must be rebuilt and their new government must be democratic. It will be the first Democratic country in the Middle East and that could lead to change in Iran and other neighboring countries.

President Bush has vowed to finish the job in Iraq regardless of the cost. His advisors have put an $87 billion price tag on that.

Many of the Democrats, including some of their presidential candidates, do not want to appropriate that much money to the rebuilding of Iraq. The public is almost evenly split on the issue.

Fox‘s Bill O‘Reilly says the rage caused by 9/11 is gone. But instead of thinking just of the human cost, but the public should look at the economic consequences of the situation.

The casualties alone lost $7.8 billion in prospective income according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The bank also estimated that it cost 18$ billion to cleanup and rebuild Ground Zero and $3.7 billion for subway and utility work.

The Milken Institute’s Ross C. DeVol estimated a $150 billion decrease in the Gross Domestic Product and 1.3 million jobs lost.

I’m no mathematician, but that seems like a lot more than $87 billion, not to mention almost 3,000 lives.

Congress should give President Bush the money he needs.

2003-09-07T11:31:00.000-07:00

Judicial nominee Miguel Estrada removed his name from consideration for the federal bench last week. A vote on his nomination was filibustered by senate Democrats who objected not to his character but to his ideology.

Neither party has done that before, and even though Estrada's withdrawal was not front page news, it will hurt the Democrats in the next election.
Hispanics make up the largest minority in the United States, and they vote heavily Democratic. But some believe that the main reason Democrats filibustered Estrada's nomination was because he is a conservative Hispanic and it would be hard for them to reject a Hispanic nominee for the United States Supreme Court in the future.

Estradas views may not be popular among the far-left, but they are not extreme by any means and he believes in upholding the rule of law, whether he agrees with policy or not.

When election time rolls around, the Republicans and political action committees will jump all over this. And it will not stop at Hispanics.
Senate Democrats have vowed to continue their obstruction obstruction. That may include Janice Rogers Brown, a black judge from California.

Although the Democratic party's racist action won't affect minorities with special interests, it may alter open-minded minorities' views.

Of coarse, racism is nothing new for the Democrats. They supported slavery, Japanese internment and affirmative action, and that has not stopped them from getting support from minorities. But if their latest acts of racism change the minds of a small portion of Hispanics and blacks, it could be the nail in the Democratic Party coffin.