Tag Archives: conservatism

national news, political news

Gov. Pence is Trump’s go-to guy

pence_122_072811

They’ve spilled the beans.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence will be announced as Donald J. Trump’s running mate on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Inspiring choice? Not really. Trump has gone the “safe” route. Meaning he has selected someone who poses zero threat of upstaging the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. He is solidly conservative. He’s a former member of Congress who reportedly has a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

Trump might win Indiana this fall, which until the 2008 election — when Barack Obama won the state over John McCain — has been one of the most reliably Republican states north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Pence, though, doesn’t represent anything resembling a “new direction” for his party.

Let’s remember that as governor, Pence signed a bill into law that allows businesses to discriminate against gay people. He called it a “religious freedom bill.” He vowed to “fix” the bill, but in reality he did hardly anything to change it.

That’s how the Republican Party wants to present itself, as the party that sanctions discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

Of course, no one knows precisely what Trump believes about such things. His mind seems to change almost hourly. I guess now he opposes equal rights for gay people. What, though, will be his response to tough questions about the issue as they arise during the fall election campaign?

Trump had planned to announce his selection of Pence on Friday morning. He delayed the announcement in light of the terror attack tonight in Nice, France.

Whenever it comes, perhaps over the weekend or quite early next week, do not expect a huge roar of approval — even from hard-core Republicans. You see, Pence’s role in the campaign likely hasn’t yet been defined.

Something tells me that Gov. Pence’s campaign role will depend on that h-u-u-u-u-g-e ego that belongs to the man at the top of the GOP ticket.

national news, political news

George Will to GOP: think strategically

1407859219000-Election-3-

George Will can turn a phrase with the best of them.

The noted columnist and television commentator is well-known for a lot of things, which include: his ardent political conservatism and his equally ardent love for baseball.

I’ll set aside the baseball expertise for a moment and focus on what he has said about the presumptive Republican Party candidate for president of the United States.

Will has given up on his Republican Party because of Trump’s emergence as the standard bearer in this fall’s campaign for the White House.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284908-george-will-leaves-gop-this-is-not-my-party

He has registered in Maryland, where he lives, as an “unaffiliated” voter. He no longer is a registered Republican.

Actually, this isn’t huge news. It’s important only because of Will’s standing among the conservative intelligentsia.

Even tough Will’s abandonment of his party isn’t a huge surprise, it stands to reason, given that the presumptive nominee has zero public record on which to run. Moreover, many of the positions he has taken in the past — such as being against free trade, being pro-choice on abortion — run directly counter to traditional Republican political orthodoxy.

Frankly, I prefer the Texas method of registering voters. We don’t declare party affiliation when we get our voter registration card. We vote in whichever primary we want and our card might — or might not — get stamped by the polling place judge at the time we vote.

Will’s best advice this year to Republicans?

Suck it up. Prepare yourselves to lose the White House and then work like hell to win it back in 2020.

Uncategorized

Political discourse needs cleansing

5 Comments

This is what has become of honest-to-goodness political discourse in this country.

Or so it appears.

A Fox News talk-show host has compared liberalism to a “disease,” such as Ebola.

That’s the spirit, Eric Bolling, of the so-called “big tent” philosophy preached by your pals on the right and extreme right wing of the political spectrum.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/06/foxs-bolling-calls-liberalism-a-dangerous-virus/201037

This kind of rhetoric is beneath contempt. Sadly, it seems to illustrate what has become of the state of political discourse in the United States. It’s “our way or the highway.”

Before you accuse me of being a liberal shill who’s taking on the righties of our great country, I want to toss a haymaker at the lefties as well. Listen to the tone of their commentary regarding those on the right. It is equally painful to hear. It suggests that conservatives are out to starve the very young and the very old, take away Granny’s retirement income and send our young men and women off to war with no clear purpose.

There once was a time in this country when conservatives and liberals could argue about ideas without trashing the other side. They were patriots of the first order. They loved their country. They merely argued over the best way to make lives better for all Americans.

***

All of this reminds me of an interview I witnessed on what was then called the “MacNeill-Lehrer News Hour” on PBS.

Jim Lehrer was interviewing two genuine war heroes: liberal Democratic former U.S. Sen. George McGovern and conservative Republican former U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater. They were commenting on the nastiness of the 1988 presidential campaign and wondered aloud to each other why liberals and conservatives no longer got along when they were off the clock.

These two political giants had earned their spurs the hard way. They both were aviators during World War II and had served heroically while fighting tyranny. They were friends and political adversaries. They shared a bond forged by fierce combat.

Goldwater became the father of the modern conservative movement in America, while McGovern became a champion for social justice and along the way became a hero to progressive all across the land.

It was at the end of the interview that Goldwater pitched an idea to McGovern: “Why don’t we run together, as a ticket, George. You and me.” McGovern and Goldwater then laughed out loud at the seeming preposterousness of the idea.

More than a quarter-century later, I wish it could have come to pass.

Uncategorized

Where have you gone, diversity?

The first three sentences of an editorial in today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal set the table for an interesting discussion about the state of intellectual diversity.

The paper opined: “Colleges and universities like to promote themselves as open-minded bastions of diversity. They strive to fill their campuses with people of different races and backgrounds.

“Encouraging diversity of thought is another matter entirely.”

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-campuses-closed-diversity-thought

The paper examined a recent controversy at Rutgers University, which had invited former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak at its commencement, only to have her withdraw after students and faculty protested her scheduled appearance.

Students staged protests and carried signs, one of which accused Rice of being a “war criminal.”

I’ve written already on the Rice controversy at Rutgers. No need to revisit that issue.

What’s troubling though, and I say this as someone who is of the liberal persuasion, is that liberals are giving their political philosophy a bad name when they protest in such a manner.

By definition, the term “liberal” is meant in the political context to foster inclusiveness; it is intended to bolster the notion that those who lean liberal are open to others’ ideas, that they’ll hear them, consider them and take them under studied advisement.

Someone tell me if I’m wrong on that one.

However, when liberals rise up and protest the appearance of conservative thinkers and policymakers, they turn the very definition of liberalism into a myth.

What’s worse is that these protests occur — of all places — on college and university campuses.

As the Review-Journal editorial notes (see attached link), these institutions promote themselves as “bastions of diversity.” Students enroll there ostensibly seeking to broaden their horizons. Conservative students get exposed to liberal thought; the reverse is true for students with liberal leanings who are exposed to conservative thought.

The Condi Rice episode ought to become — to borrow a term — a “teachable moment” for university faculty and students all across this great land.

Uncategorized

JFK or the Gipper today? Forget about it!

Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe’s conservative columnist, believes John F. Kennedy’s name would be mud in today’s Democratic Party.

Perhaps so, given that JFK was no flaming liberal a la Barack Obama, John Kerry or Al Gore Jr.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/19/would-jfk-never-liberal-still-find-home-democratic-party/ZrxV7lJYHrvWxOjXItAuZJ/story.html

But allow me to finish the rest of that argument.

Just as Democrats wouldn’t embrace JFK today, the current Republican Party seems out of step with some of its own stalwarts — such as Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and, dare I say, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

All this is evidence of just how polarized the political climate has become in America. It’s become a place where working across the aisle is anathema to the so-called “true believers.” The result has been a government that no longer works as it should for the good of the entire country.

Kennedy was a pro-defense hawk. He hated communists. JFK sought to govern with muscle and was unafraid to threaten to use military force against our foes if the need presented itself … e.g., the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. A romantic thought has been kicked around for 50 years that had he lived and been re-elected in 1964 the Vietnam War would have ended much sooner, that Kennedy would have realized our involvement there was a mistake. I’m not quite so sure of that. Besides, who can know for certain what he would have done?

If we’re going to examine our partisan icons of the past, it’s good to look at all of them.

Goldwater is the father of the modern conservative movement. He became a classic libertarian who despised government interference in people’s private lives. Is that the GOP of today? Hardly.

Richard Nixon’s administration created the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the bogeymen that modern conservatives today want to abolish.

Ronald Reagan? Well, he made working with Democrats in Congress a virtual art form. His friendship with House Speaker Tip O’Neill became legendary, even while both men were at the height of their power.

They were icons in their day. Of the three GOP leaders of the past, only Reagan conjures up warm memories among today’s conservatives. My own view is that the Gipper would be disgusted at the open animosity his political descendants are exhibiting.