Axis of Right

Three Native Rhode Islanders Commenting From the Right on Politics and Anything Else

Archive for April 25th, 2007

Joe Buzz

Posted by Ryan on April 25, 2007

There’s a buzz around the blogosphere about Joe Lieberman’s response to Harry Reid’s “the war is lost” rhetoric.  The buzz isn’t about Lieberman’s support of the war, but of something much more ominous:  Joe’s very liberal, but also very independent, having been abandoned by the Connecticut Democratic Party and getting reelected anyway.  What if he decided that because of Reid’s politicking on the war and his old party’s attempts to defund the troops, Joe ubruptly starts caucusing with the Republicans?

Suddenly, there’d be 49 Dems and 1 Socialist on one side and 49 Republicans with Joe on the other. 

Here’s another way tot look at the math: 50 + Dick Cheney = Republican control of the Senate!

I think that Joe needs to man-up on this one and take the plunge.  He’d still have five years to rehabilitate any damage to his image before the next election in a blue state where he doesn’t even need the Democratic Party behind him to win.  Even the threat might send a message to the Dems to replace Reid as their leader.  Yet, the Dems haven’t been very good at understanding messages over the last six months.  I know this is just buzz, but the thought would be neat!

Posted in Politics, The Iraq Front, War on Terror | 2 Comments »

Obama and the One-Sided Debate

Posted by Mike on April 25, 2007

Failing to read beyond the headlines of recent news stories, Barrack Obama criticized Rudy Giuliani for his remarks that America would face another 9-11 if a Democrat won the White House. According to the empty suit,

Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics,” Obama said in a statement. “America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure.”

There are three problems with this overreaction. First, Giuliani did not say that electing a Democrat would lead to another 9-11. Obama would know that if he had actually read the article underneath the misleading headline in the Politico story which generated the controversy. What Giuliani said was that our nation would return to a “pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.” He then cited Democrat opposition to post September 11 measures such as the Iraq War and wiretapping as evidence for his claim. Giuliani did not say what the headline said he did.

The second problem with Obama’s overreaction is his aversion to debate. Democrats repeatedly squawk about the need for a frank discussion about national security issues. Implicit in these calls for discussion is an exchange of viewpoints, including the potential consequences of opposing points of view. Democrats like Obama oppose the war in Iraq and other aspects of the War on Terror. Assuming their opposition is honest, they take the positions they do because they think their policies will create a more secure America while their opponents’ policies would make America less secure. Conversely, Republicans like Giuliani take the positions they do because they think their policies will create a more secure America while their opponents’ policies would make America less secure. That’s the debate. If it’s acceptable for Democrats to make their arguments, then it’s acceptable for Republicans to make theirs.

The third problem is that Obama didn’t tell the truth. Giuliani never questioned his patriotism.

Today’s national security debate centers around which policies are most effective in preserving national security. In that debate, people presumably take a position because they see the alternatives as less effective. In this case, Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. Democrats can call for a discussion and criticize Republicans. Republicans can’t talk back though.

Posted in Election 2008, Politics, War on Terror | 5 Comments »

McCain-Feingold Watch

Posted by Sal on April 25, 2007

Oral arguments were held today in the Supreme Court for the case FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Lifeinvolve ads that WRL wanted to run during the 2004 election cycle urging Russ Feingold to support a piece of Pro-life legislation.  This ad fell under McCain-Feingold’s draconian 60-day rule, and was not allowed to be aired.  The case is now before the SCOTUS, and both Roberts and Scalia appear to be itching to overturn the 2003 decision McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.  In 2003, it was Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy dissenting against Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and O’Connor.  During arguments, Roberts expressed disdain for restrictions on speech, so the crux of where this ruling will come down appears to fall on Justice Alito.  Given his seeming preference for narrow rulings as opposed to the broad overturning of cases, I predict that the case will allow ads such as the one presented in this case, but will fall short of overturning McConnell

Posted in Judicial Watch, Politics | 3 Comments »

Newt Triangulation

Posted by Sal on April 25, 2007

The Non-candidate candidate Newt Gingrich is attempting to establish his 2008 campaign platform by taking traditional conservative issues and expanding or refining them, coming up with new approaches to traditional conservative issues.  He is also attempting triangulation at traditional liberal issues such as health care, and attempting to proactively push more conservative solutions to these so-called “Democrat issues”.  Whether he succeeds or not is still up in the air.  His ideas are certainly more conservative than the ideas of the left, but sometimes he concedes ground in order to win the issue.  For example, Newt’s views on environmentalism are much more common-sense than the Democrats.  He believes in using the free market to push a “Green Conservatism“, but he accepts the premise that carbon, which is produced by all animals,  is harmful to the atmosphere.  Politically, it may make sense because Newt is positioning himself as a problem-solver, trying to rise above traditional politics and separate from the “Liberal Machine” and “Stand-Pat Republicans”.  Newt is trying to position himself as the new Reagan, a conservative politician with fresh ideas and  ready to build a coalition of Conservative Republicans, Democrats, and independents.  That, and his decision not to announce a run until the fall at the earliest, is unconventional to say the least.  Whether his approach will gain any traction is an open question, but it is interesting to watch in any case. 

Posted in Election 2008, Politics | 2 Comments »