“If America were a Stock, it would be a Buy”

It seems that all we hear about is the continuing demise of American influence in the world. It is true that we have lost some respect, we are not as feared as we once were – Russia and Iran have no problem defying us. Our actions in Iraq have had a negative effect on our influence abroad. But all is not lost with America’s place as the world’s superpower of influence. The Economist of all publications has written a very interesting and thought provoking piece on the future of America in the international arena. It is refreshing to hear some optimism on this issue.

American Power: Still #1 – The Economist

Here is a segment of the article:

If America were a stock, it would be a “buy”: an undervalued market leader, in need of new management. But that points to its last great strength. More than any rival, America corrects itself. Under pressure from voters, Mr Bush has already rediscovered some of the charms of multilateralism; he is talking about climate change; a Middle East peace initiative is possible. Next year’s presidential election offers a chance for renewal. Such corrections are not automatic: something (a misadventure in Iran?) may yet compound the misery of Iraq in the same way Watergate followed Vietnam. But America recovered from the 1970s. It will bounce back stronger again.

Why I support Mr. Fix It for President

I was not planning to post on this yet, but I just read an article from CNN Money that basically gives every reason while I whole heartedly support Mitt Romney for President. In fact I think he is the best Presidential candidate since 1984, the last time Reagan ran.

The Republican’s Mr. Fix it – CNN Money

If there is anything in the country that needs to be fixed it is the government. Romney business record and acumen and his enjoyment of delving into data is exactly what this country needs and makes him the antithesis of President Bush. Sure, he can be a little TOO business like, in moments that is less than ideal and people will hold that against him, but that hardly is a reasonable argument against his candidacy. Like any candidate since the inception of this country, he is far from perfect and I do not agree with him on everything and have some of my own criticisms. But that being said, he is still one of the best candidates we have seen in a long time and, more importantly, would restore international respect to a country who has seen it erode in the last five years.

Young Voters Support Obama, Hillary; no way, really?

So young voters aged 18-30 overwhelmingly support Obama and Hillary for President. Wow, this is breaking news..oh wait, no it’s not. How is this news! I’ve seen this on CBS, CNN, Fox News, Drudge, NRO, etc, etc. They all seem surprised. Since when is it a surprise that young people lean left? The writers seem surprised that they support universal health care, increased minimum wage, government subsidies, etc, etc. So, in addition to announcing who young voters support, they add this:

By contrast, young voters aren’t feeling the love for Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who were each favored by less than five percent of youths. CBS News reports that, in fact, GOP primary voters were more enthusiastic about Obama (8 percent) than Thompson or even Sen. John McCain.

Again, how is this news? I could have written that exact article without ever polling anyone. Somebody, sometime once said something like, “If you are 20 and not liberal you have no heart, if you are 40 and not conservative you have no brain.”

Stupid People and Immigration

I have been trying to avoid the issue of writing about the current illegal immigration legislation that is all the rage today. It is one of those issues that, as I observe both sides, seems to have nothing but irrationality throughout, especially on my side of the aisle. I consider myself pretty conservative. Ask anyone who knows me and they would probably say that I am among the most conservative people they know. But on this issue I think I oppose most other conservatives. I do not support blanket amnesty and am completely against illegal immigration, like most Republicans, but it seems that Republicans’ emotions about this issue has become so heated that they have lost all sense of rationality and reality.

I just read that a Senate plan to send immigrants home to apply for a visa was defeated. Good! Anyone who thinks that it is remotely feasible or realistic to essentially extradite 12 million illegal aliens to their home country has completely lost their mind. I understand that this is ideal, but we Republicans and conservatives are supposed to be realistic and smart, stupid idealism is supposed to be reserved for the left. Sending 12 million people who are, at least a good percentage of them, working in America would severely damage our economy, it would stretch our already inefficient bureaucracy to never-before-seen gridlock, cost millions to billions of dollars, and you have to deal with their children who were born in America and thus are citizens. Please start thinking rationally and realistically.

So, the question then becomes what do we do? Really it is quite simple. First, like most issues, there are plenty of laws already on the books; start enforcing them. This avoids more useless legislation and saves taxpayer money. Second, secure the borders. Stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming into this country by 75% (we will never be able to completely stop all illegal immigration, but we can make it extremely difficult). Once the borders are secure and the tide has stemmed, it is at that point that we take up the issue of what to do with those that are already here. Frankly, make them pay some fine and pay back taxes and then give them legal residency; dare I say Amnesty.

Why is this a logical plan? Because it works for all involved. The problem with the last immigration legislation that was passed under President Reagan was that people stayed for free and we didn’t secure the borders, so others thought – ‘hey, they went illegally and got of scot free, so can I’. That is our fault for being stupid. Once the borders are secure we can forgive and forget those that are currently here, and then any new illegals that are caught are immediately fined and deported. Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.

Is this less than ideal, of course. But it is the only plan that makes sense.

Does Flip-Flopping Matter?

Politics is politics, people will do whatever they have to do to get elected. The 2008 election is no different from any other one. My estimation is, is that the only two Presidents not to “flip-flop” in a campaign were George Washington and John Adams. Why? because they didn’t campaign. So why do we make such a big deal about flip-flopping?

Now let it be known, that I railed on Kerry for flip-flopping, so I probably sound like a hypocrite. Fine, say what you will, but at least none of the Republicans have said “I voted for it before I voted against it” and the Republicans are at least sticking to their new found positions, something Kerry failed to do.

Hugh Hewitt, a confessed Romney apologist (me too, by the way), wrote an article precisely about this. He makes some intriguing points that we should consider:

It’s easy to turn a blind eye if someone’s flip-flopping in my direction, but that’s not it. Rather, it’s that at some point, you’ve gotta dance with the ones that brung ya. Said another way, the positions Romney et al. (Giuliani, Thompson. McCain) are taking now, in the most important campaign of their lives, are the ones they’re stuck with — whether they like it or not.After his public conversion and being pilloried as a flip-flopper, do you seriously think that Romney can walk back his pro-life positionwithout destroying himself? Does anyone actually think that Romney would be so stupid as to advance public funding of elections after running as the enemy of BCRA? If Romney runs and manages to get elected as a conservative, why would he revert to a non-winning position?

If you look at history, how candidates run — regardless of what they believed earlier in their career — is how they govern once they win. Conservatives may feel betrayed by George W. Bush but his campaigns were stellar examples of truth-in-advertising. Remember, he got elected as a different kind of Republican who was pro-immigrant and who was more concerned about taxes than spending. How Bush governed is exactly how he ran, except maybe for the nation-building thing (and there was a pretty big change in circumstances there.)

Slippery as he was, Clinton ran as a Third Way Democrat and governed that way.Bush the Father was the mixed bag we expected him to be. Once he became pro-life, he stayed pro-life. But no one expected him to be Ronald Reagan (“kinder, gentler nation”) and he wasn’t. And what you saw was what you got in Ronaldus Maximus.

Apparently they all flip-flopped or changed their views to fit those whom they were courting. Ideal? No, but hopefully they are at least changing their positions to fit ours. It is an excellent point that Hewitt makes that the candidates governed as they campaigned, and that is really what is important. For we pro-lifers, I would rather have someone who once was pro-choice, now says they are pro-life to get elected, and governs and appoints judges as a pro-lifer than I would a Giuliani who was pro-choice, is still pro-choice, and will govern pro-choice. More from Hewitt:

And does authenticity still matter? Yes, it does. But at some point, your basic positioning on issues has to matter too. And primary voters have a right to evaluate that.

We need to start thinking of this imperfect field not as a problem, but as an opportunity. Conservatives, these guys need you. They can’t take a single vote for granted. You should be forcing them to take positions that are more to your liking, because they won’t be able to live them down after running (and hopefully winning) on them.

Amen to that.