If it weren't for the realistic fact that I believe a society has the right to legislate morality, I'd be a Libertarian. It would be nice if the government could stay out of the personal affairs of those who do not do harm to others, but we have seen from examples in history where flagrant assaults on the sensibilities and beliefs of the majority have caused disastrous results. No country's government can long survive without the willing consent of the majorty of its citizenry.  

 

I am a conservative, but I do not subscribe to the politics of the "religious right."

 

- I have no problems with the concept of  "right to choose." On the other hand, I have serious problems with those on that side who question the motives of those who are "pro-life" and equate the "right to choose" with an entitlement to have the American taxpayer pick up the tab.

 

- As long as alcohol and tobacco, both dangerous and addictive drugs, are legal, there should be no reason to make commerce in other drugs illegal.

 

- I support the Right to Bear Arms, because it is clearly stated as such in the Constitution. I would also vigorously oppose any law attempting to infringe on that right for the same reason. Nonetheless, that is a right that I believe to be archaic. If an anti-gun group were to be successful in repealing the Second Amendment, I wouldn't lose any sleep.

 

John Kerry, I see, want's to "one-up" President Bush by stating that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations need to be implemented immediately. If you liked the Patriot Act, you're simply gonna adore the 9-11 Commission's recommendation for a Cabinet-level position designed to run herd over the various intelligence services. Those of us who were out of our mothers' wombs long enough to remember the Nixon White House will recall the reason the Intelligence "Tower of Babel" was dismantled in the first place: to protect the rights of the little guy against an all-powerful monolithic Federal government.

 

President Bush is absolutely right that such a recommendation needs considerable study. The Patriot Act can be amended or even repealed through its internal sunset provisions. It's not so easy to turn off a Department of the Executive Branch.

 

Does that mean I support the idea of this war? Not at all. If I were the President, I would have done things far differently. My approach would not have involved overseas military action, but there would have been major changes in domestic handling of foreign nationals--both at the border and inside the country.

 

- I would have treated visitors from certain nations the same way we treated visitors from the Iron Curtain countries during the Cold War. We allowed them entry, but limited their freedom of movement beyond a certain radius.

 

- I would have limited US air and sea access to this country to four or five specific ports of entry, and prohibited foreign flag carriers from proceeding beyond the POE.

 

- I would have taken similar security measures at airports as are currently in place, but would have made it easier for frequent flyers who are US Citizens to get through the checks.

 

- The issue of Illegal Aliens and the War on Terror is not as intermingled as many conservatives profess. Hence, I don't see the millions of illegal immigrants in our country as a threat to our National Security. It is a drain on the taxpayers and prevents American labor from receiving fair wages for many jobs, but that's a separate issue. We need to track legal visitors to our country by implemeting such measures that facilitate the process. 

 

That aside, Bush has implemented an alternate workable solution. Nobody on the Democratic side has offered any course of action whatsoever. They didn't offer one when there were choices, and they certainly don't have one right now.

 

Some of the best drama on television last week (November 11-13, 2003) was on CSPAN. The Democrats and Republicans duked it out over the use of the filibuster on the Senate floor against Presidential nominations. Frankly, I thought the Democrats were ill-advised to take that approach with the crop of nominees up for consideration.

 

First of all, let me emphasize that the Republicans are not the innocents or the victims in all this. They have little moral right to demand that the President's nominee be given the dignity of an up or down vote when they have a record of blocking nominations in committee. The fact that they have not used the filibuster to block a nomination on the floor is technically correct, but technicalities don't make the proper atmsosphere for true moral outrage. Technicalities are legal tricks often used to acquit the guilty.

 

Next, we should ask ourselves if the filibuster really serves a good purpose in the Senate--even for nominations. I would advance the notion that it does serve a useful purpose--especially for nominations. Look what happened after 9/11. The nation got caught up in a frenzy of reaction that might have led to the loss of our rights. In a moment of pique, something could happen at just the right time to bring zealots into office. This group of people, reacting to the whim of a fickle public, could enact draconian laws and stuff the judiciary with people who would permit them to ramrod any travesty against liberty.

 

Here's where we have the problem. The Democrats are using this precious capability for purely political reasons against qualified and mainstream judges. Sure, they used the rhetoric befitting their filibuster, calling them "Neanderthals" and "far from the mainstream," but they are simply lying--and they know it. Judges far from the mainstream leave a trail of decisions and legal majority and dissenting opinions that can be read off at length. I didn't hear any decisions being discussed, only one jurist's comments before the Federalist Society, claiming that  government can threaten liberty. Let me tell them a little fact of life: it is true. Isn't John Ashcroft part of the government? Wasn't the Patriot Act an act of the government? Do we have the liberty to leave our childrens' Social Security numbers off our tax forms?

 

What's the end result of this slimy tactic the Democrats have started to use? I can see two scenarios.

 

- The Republicans, in the eventuality that they are in the minority, will use this as payback when the next Democratic President tries to make any nominations.

 

- This matter will be brought before the US Supreme Court and they may rule that all Presidential nominations will be sent to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

 

I really don't want to see either scenario, but one is almost certain to happen. This little exercise may have provided Democrats with a temporary testosteronic rush, but their actions hurt this nation in the long run.

 

President George W. Bush is not listed here, as he has not yet completed his term. On a dynamic sliding scale, I'd place him currently between number 4 and 5 on this list.

 

This list is not based upon whether or not I agree with the positions of the Presidents, but how I view their effectiveness and leadership skills. This should explain why I place so many Democrats as high as I do.

 

1. Franklin Roosevelt.  There is no doubt in this conservative mind that FDR was the greatest President of the 20th Century. Nobody comes close. His actions, though they did little or nothing to revive the US economy during the Great Depression, probably prevented a revolution.

 

2. Ronald Reagan. President Reagan singlehandedly fixed the US economy. It was painful at first, but he stamped out inflation and spurred the business activity that a certain subsequent President tried to take the credit for.

 

3. Harry Truman. Harry Truman was the first President to decide to use the Atomic weapon, and similarly the first President to decide against using it when the opportunity next arose during the Korean conflict.

 

4. Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson, though treated poorly by historians for his disastrous problems in VietNam, was an extremely effective President--especially during the 89th Congress. Had the Vietnam conflict not hindered his actions, he might have been number two on my list.

 

5. John F Kennedy. JFK was a lackluster President with one shining accomplishment: he faced down the Russians in October 1962 over the missiles they started to deploy in Cuba. 

 

6. Gerald Ford. Gerald R. Ford was an ineffective President, thanks to the fact he was a caretaker after Nixon's resignation. His shining moment: his correct handling of the Mayaguez incident in Cambodia. His dullest: The "Whip Inflation Now" (WIN) campaign. 

 

7. Dwight Eiesnhower.  He was an elected (and re-elected) caretaker President.

 

8. George HW Bush. GHW Bush failed to inspire anyone to follow him.

 

9. Jimmy Carter.  The only reason Jimmy Carter is not at the bottom of the pile is that he was an honest person. Otherwise, the position of President actually overwhelmed him. He was incompetent.

 

10. Richard Nixon. Nixon was competent, but he was a crook. The excesses of his office led to many laws concerning the privacy of citizens and the reigning in of federal law enforcement agencies. He ran roughshod over the Constitution, attempting to combat his view of enemies within and without the country. He had many bright moments in his career, such as his overtures with China, but his actions behind the scenes more than erased any of the good he did. 

 

11. Bill Clinton.  Clinton was competent, yet ineffective. He was able to act Presidential, but so can Martin Sheen. Other than welfare reform that he signed with great reluctance, he has no positive legacy. Even with the safeguards put into place because of Nixon's excesses, his administration sought to violate rights and privacy of citizens who crossed him. The primary difference between Nixon and Clinton is that the former actually believed he was acting in the best interests of the nation.

 

 

Recently, New Jersey and portions of Idaho banned 'Ladies' Nights at bars. I've heard hours of arguments from opponents of this notion and I don't think any of them get the bigger picture. They ascribed all sorts of negative adjectives and epithets to the instigators, but they missed the most important and dangerous aspect: They are smart and they have a much bigger fish to fry. In my opinion, they couldn't care less about ladies' night. In fact, they are probably just as much in favor of ladies's nights as any red-blooded bar owner, guy on the prowl, or girl looking for an inexpensive evening of fun.

 

Opponents argue that Ladies' nights are not the equivalent of 'Rosa Parks' style civil rights. They are correct about that. They argue that everybody benefits from Ladies' nights. They are correct about that. So what's the hook?

 

Biology. Everybody--liberal or conservative--is fully aware of the intent and purpose of Ladies' nights. The intent is to draw women to an establishment whereby it will draw men. Everybody benefits--except those establishments that don't have ladies' nights. The sole intent of applying laws to get ladies' nights banned is to do nothing other than anger people into action. They want people to demand state legislatures to allow for exceptions to laws which forbid racial or gender-based discrimination when the intent is not malicious.

 

In case you haven't guess what I'm driving at by now, let's look at the reason bar owners have ladies' nights. In many establishments, ladies are a clear minority. The intent of the bar owner is to change the rules for that underrepresented minority by attracting them with incentives. Does that sound familiar? Don't certain institutions with underrepresented minorities try to balance out the representation by offering those minorities incentives, such as reduced cost of admission (aka tuition) or entrance requirements (aka reduced scores on entrance examinations)

 

Now you get it. Right now, people are passing laws in certain states which effectively kill affirmative actions programs. There is no widespread public outrage against these laws because they make sense to most people. If you make sure those same rules are enforced against a very popular program, people fail to see the similarity. Any legal mind, however, would spot the similarity in a second and might act to write legislation that would leave the legal door wide open to affirmative action.

 

So how should a conservative respond to these rules? Support them! It will drive the instigators crazy.

 

 

 

 

 

What is the likely outcome if we pulled out of Iraq? Will the "insurgents" saunter into Baghdad and follow the Vietnam model of conquest? In Cambodia, everyone who was in the former government or anyone who was in the military in the rank of corporal or above was summarily executed. What  would happen if the "insurgents" in Iraq managed to take over? Would they ignore the voter rolls in their search for "collaborators?" I think not.