Secretary Gates tells us that Iraqi insurgent bombs can be traced to Iran. Is the administration searching for a 21st century Gulf of Tonkin Incident?
There seems to be evidence that the folks who championed the current war in Iraq now have Iran in their sights.
Kyrie eleison
[NB: I don’t write about politics much anymore, but I felt the need to say something after last night’s election.]
I’m asking myself that question right now as nearly every major candidate I voted for took a major drubbing. Granted, if a party ever deserved to lose and lose badly at this moment in history it was the Republicans. Seeing VP Cheney on TV declaring we’d continue in Iraq no matter what the people say was enough to almost make me vote Democratic. I get the sense that this election isn’t really a big Democratic victory as much as a huge Republican loss. Granted the Democrats will take it and the Republicans will lament it, but overall it doesn’t present us with a huge change in voter ideology. Simply put, voters hated the Iraq mess, disdained the corruption at high levels, and felt the economy wasn’t trickling down to the middle class. So, people naturally booted out the leaders. It just happens in a two party system that booting means it’s the turn of the Democrats to mess…um…I mean govern.
Yet, in spite of all the hype, I don’t think the Democrats would do any better at running the country and in fact could do a lot worse. Sure, we’d possibly get minimum wage hikes (a good thing), but also probably a lot of Bush bashing and fringe liberal activism to please the base (as much as I dislike Bush and respect some aspects of liberalism, still bad things). And what about voter anger about Iraq, corruption, and jobs? NAFTA was Clinton’s big thing…and Clinton, the Democrats, and scandals? Are our memories really so short? And Clinton also pulled the whole “war that we didn’t belong in with no UN approval” thing in the former Yugoslavia. This happened (including authorization for Bush’s war in Iraq, by the way) with support from congressional Democrats. In many ways, Bush, with his wasteful spending and interventionist foreign policy is simply taking cues from the Democratic play-book. Does anyone really believe the Democrats will get us out of Iraq, keep us out of Iran, or stand up to Israel to achieve a just settlement with Palestinians? The Democrats may be remotely better, but I don’t think, even if they had the power, they would drastically change US foreign policy. I don’t think they have even said as much. Many are simply neo-conservatives in blue drag.
The question remains: what is a conservative to do? I think we need to return to our roots and try to take the Republican party in that direction as well (which incidentally are the party’s roots as well).
1. We need to return to a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy. Our founding fathers consistently warned about the USA getting overly involved in world affairs that didn’t concern us. Let’s heed their advice.
2. We need to admit that the dogmatic and total adherence to principles of free trade is bad for Americans and bad for America. Other countries look out for their interests first and so should we. Losing a couple million manufacturing jobs is not good for America, or even neutral.
3. We need to totally abandon wasteful spending and influence peddling, and create balanced budgets.
I think this is a vision that would appeal to many liberals and moderates. It is, believe it or not, the position of traditional (or “paleo”) conservatism which, although somewhat small as a movement today, is still represented well by Pat Buchanan , American Conservative Magazine and AntiWar.Com (and by some in religious blogdom like A Conservative Blog for Peace)
I think after the midterm elections, in terms of conservatism, it’s time for the Republicans to try something old, not something borrowed or new. Sorry for bad poetry, but..those only turn states blue.
Yep, that’s right. In spite of earlier media reports, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was not raised Catholic before she later converted to evangelical Christianity. It seems that she was actually raised Episcopalian. My question is: how did this get reported in the media for so long without anyone actually checking?
Source: Catholic News Service
Hat Tip: Dave Hartline at the Catholic Report
President Bush is set to announce his Supreme Court choice tonight. According to the previously linked news piece, he may nominate an appeals court judge (woman) from New Orleans. I don’t think Bush could nominate anyone pro-life and have that person accepted by the Democrats. It seems that anyone who opposes abortion or even casts doubts on its morality or legality is an “extremist” in the minds of many Democrats. There is going to be a great fight, although I hope and pray that the judge will be a just, godly, and dignified person who affirms the sanctity of life from womb to (natural) tomb. And I hope that Bush and the Senate are willing to fight to get that person confirmed.
Although I disagree with Bush on some pretty major issues, I wish to congratulate him on his victory. I will continue to keep him in my prayers and I pray that in all his decisions he will look to God, especially with regard to protecting the lives of the unborn.
I have been voting since I’ve been 18 and today I once again did my civic and Catholic duty. As many of you know, I could not endorse any presidential candidate this year because of both candidate’s support for Iraq, Bush’s ties to ultrahuge business and embrace of dangerous neoconservative foreign policy, and Kerry’s views on life. I am in Ohio, so I felt that a vote for a third party (which I would honestly prefer) would be essentially a vote for Kerry and the culture of death he would promote. So, holding my nose, I ended up voting for Bush. I pray for the day when we can get real choice in politics.
Image from KidsDomain
Robert Novak, an excellent writer and Jewish convert to Catholicism, has written a timely piece called Kerry Losing Points With Catholics. Novak briefly addresses Kerry’s “litmus test” for federal judge appointees which, as former ambassador to the Vatican and former Democratic Boston mayor Raymond Flynn so publically noted is a promise to: “only support people to the Federal Judiciary who support killing unborn children.” There you have it: only pro-abortion people to the judiciary. I am no fan of Bush in general, but could never under any circumstance vote for Kerry. Apart from any other policy, his “litmus test” would be a disaster for the protection of the unborn.
Knowing where a candidate really stands can sometimes be very tough. In elections, all candidates “spin” things one way or another. It’s very hard for the average person to get adequate information. This is especially important for Catholics since we must make an informed vote in accord with Church teaching. To help with that, the US Council of Bishops has released: Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. All American Catholics should first consult this guide. Secondly, all Catholics must learn where a particular candidate stands on those foundational issues. I’ve found a good site that provides excellent information on making an informed vote: Project VoteSmart. This site has information on candidates from the President on down and includes for each candidate (where possible): a questionaire on important issues, his or her voting record, public statements, endorsements, and the person’s rating by special interest groups. This information should help anyone to make an informed choice amidst the spin from all the candidates. For example, in spite of John Kerry’s efforts to appear more “moderate” on the abortion issue, from 1996-2004 he has received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and a 0% rating from National Right to Life. As Catholics, we should check the facts, make an informed decision, and above all PRAY!
John Kerry doesn’t seem like an awful guy and on many issues I could support him. Even on abortion he certainly doesn’t have militantly pro-choice rhetoric. Yet, John Kerry suffers the fate of Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, and Richard Gephardt: if you want to be ’somebody’ in the national Democratic party you have to support abortion on demand. John Kerry has the enthusiastic endorsement of Planned Parenthood, an organization that promotes and profits from the slaughter of millions on innocents. Planned Parenthood is so rabidly pro-abortion they opposed the partial birth abortion ban (truth in advertising would call it the infanticide ban). Any restrictions on abortion are opposed by Planned Parenthood and other feminist groups. And these same groups are the powers behind the throne (ok one of many powers) in the Democratic party. Look at how pro-life Democrats fare at national gatherings: marginalization, censorship, and ridicule. So much for tolerance. I really don’t care much for most of Bush’s policies and voting for him will require the holding of my nose. In the abstract, I could see myself voting for John Kerry, but I could never vote for Planned Parenthood. And a vote for one is a sure vote for the other. Unless there is a viable pro-life, anti-war third party candidate, I’m going to end up voting for Bush.
I fly alot and reading an article like this one doesn’t exactly inspire confidence! In fact, it is downright terrifying! Political correctness has already killed our biggest Protestant churches and now it seems to be killing our government as well. Scary stuff.
