THE MUSIC STILL STIRS ME
June 06, 2009
Peggy Noonan -- former Reagan speechwriter turned Wall Street Journal columnist and chronicler of the Reagan legacy -- has a great piece about the unveiling of Reagan's statute at the U.S. Capitol.
Summarizing Sen. Mitch McConnell's speech: " ... in the 1980s, when the world said America was over, America said not quite, and when they said freedom was yesterday, America said I don't think so. Reagan 'stood taller than any statue.'"
But here is the portion that grabbed me:
The colors were presented. The U.S. Army chorus sang the national anthem so beautifully, with such harmonic precision and depth, that some dry eyes turned moist, including those of the crusty journalist to my right. Congressmen hear choirs sing patriotic songs all the time and grow used to it. The rest of us do not and are stirred. Tourists walk through the Rotunda and think to themselves that they'd die for the signs and symbols of this place. Lawmakers experience the Rotunda as a connecting point between House and Senate that's too often clogged by overweight tourists in shorts from Bayonne. We need term limits. When the music no longer moves you, you should leave. When you cannot leave, you should be pushed.
Amen.
THE BILL ALWAYS COMES DUE
June 05, 2009
Former Gov. Janet Napolitano was back in Arizona yesterday doing what she does best -- handing out other people's money:
Napolitano wouldn't elaborate on details during an appearance here Thursday in which she announced grants of about $59 million for local law enforcement efforts to combat crime along the southwestern border.
I'm all for fighting crime along the southwestern border. But Secretary Napolitano has a long history of spending money that doesn't exist, failing to provide any details, and then leaving other people -- usually Republicans -- to clean up the mess.
So now, in a day of multi-trillion dollar federal deficits, she is all smiles as she hands out federal money that is borrowed against our future. Meanwhile, six years of Napolitano overspending in Arizona created a huge problem she has left for Republicans to try to clean up, and even now there are no easy solutions.
History repeats itself. At some point, a responsible Republican administration will have to clean up the mess created by Obama administration overspending.
But it sure is fun to hand out money.
THE POLITICS OF SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
May 26, 2009
Every President makes political calculations when nominating Supreme Court Justices.
President Obama, with no Latinos in his Cabinet, was under intense pressure to choose a Hispanic woman, and federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotamayor was a perfect fit. Already, Democratic strategists are crowing about "locking up the Hispanic vote" for years to come as a result of this pick.
Republicans may be wary about opposing the first Hispanic high court nominee, despite her obvious liberal judicial philosophy and a You Tube clip showing her joking about federal appeals courts being the place where policy is made.
But if Democrats try to make too much of this historic first appointment, Republicans will be quick to remind them of their disgraceful treatment of federal appeals court judge nominee Miguel Estrada -- who after two appointments, 28 months and seven Senate filibusters -- withdrew his name from consideration. Estrada was opposed by Democrats precisely because they feared he could later become a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court. President Bush also appointed the first Latino Attorney General of the United States.
From my perspective, with the goal of a color-blind society in sight, I would like to see the focus for all candidates for high office be on their ability and judicial philosophy rather than their heritage or skin color.
PRO-LIFE AMERICA
May 15, 2009
For the first time since Gallup began asking this question in 1995, a majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life:
The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.
Of course, prior to Roe v. Wade and in the early days of our nation -- before any polls were taken -- the vast majority of our citizens knew the obvious: abortion was the taking of an innocent human life. The predecessor to the American Medical Association pushed for statutes on abortion during the mid-19th century -- an effort to codify the common law understanding that abortion was murder.
About a decade ago I wrote for the East Valley Tribune that abortion would end in America for the same reason slavery had to end -- it violates our nation's founding principles. We know as a people that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life. Our compassion as a people for the innocent, the vulnerable, the weak -- all of these values demand that we work to protect children in the womb.
While the continued movement toward life is a testament to the tireless efforts of pro-life leaders to increase public understanding of the issue, we have much work yet to do.
One fact these Gallup results make clear -- we have now elected a President and put in place Democratic political leadership in Congress who are dramatically out of touch with America on this vital issue.
POLITICIANS BEHAVING BADLY
May 12, 2009
Got an email today from my Congressman, Harry Mitchell. Somehow they got my email address and sent me a nice email promoting Mitchell's new website, which of course promotes all the great and wonderful things Harry Mitchell is doing to improve my life.
And to top it all off -- I'm paying for his emails and his website!
Ironically, at almost exactly the same time, I got an email from the Goldwater Institute exposing the level of abuse of taxpayer funds by Arizona politicians to promote themselves.
The title is: "Shameless self-promotion: How politicians use your money to get re-elected."
I have some familiarity with the concept, having run for Governor against then-incumbent Janet Napolitano, who happily spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money to promote herself. And actually, there is much more than the report reveals -- as author Shawnna L.M. Bolick notes, the totals represent only "the tip of the iceberg."
Most disappointing to me is the presence on this list -- in a big way -- of politicians, including some friends, who are conservatives. The temptation to use your office to build name ID must be extraordinary, but I hope this report will encourage conservatives to abandon this practice as a violation of our commitment to fiscal integrity with taxpayer funds. There are plenty of ethical ways for an incumbent to stay in front of voters while performing legitimate functions of the office.
Take the time to read the report, and let your legislators know how you feel about your tax dollars being used for self-promotion rather than legitimate governmental purposes.
SUPREME STEALTH
May 01, 2009
David Souter never belonged on the Supreme Court, something even he seemed to acknowledge by his decision to resign from a lifetime appointment in good health at the age of 69.
Winston Churchill's description of a political opponent applies to Souter: a modest man with much to be modest about.
Souter was nominated by the first President Bush during an era when liberal Democrats controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on the heels of President Reagan's failure to get conservative Robert Bork onto the Court. Souter was touted as a "stealth" conservative who could get approved by the Senate because he hadn't really done anything they could complain about.
For about three years, Souter seemed to confirm that judgment. But beginning with his decision to reaffirm the essential holding of Roe v. Wade and his decision to block a simple prayer from being offered at a high school graduation, Souter has for many years formed a liberal, activist voting bloc with two Clinton appointees and Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford.
The lesson for those who oppose liberal judicial activism? Make the case for originalism -- as Chief Justice Roberts did very effectively -- and let the political chips fall where they may. We can't win if we aren't willing to make an argument for the correct approach to the judiciary.
Once again we have a justice appointed by a conservative Republican who has wanted to leave the Court for years, but instead waited around for purely political reasons so that a liberal Democrat could pick his replacement.
For Souter -- having done his part to prevent the Rehnquist and Robert courts from fixing past judicial activism, and having deprived new generations of preborn children of the opportunity to have their lives protected by law -- now he can return to the anonymity and solitude he so strongly desired and richly deserves.
Previous Headlines
