24 March, 2008

A Prominent Conservative Endorses Obama

Endorsing Obama
Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends, but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican, and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law, and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the Court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican, and the constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.

9/11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. . . .wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Senator Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a world-wide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby, stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Senator Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject, as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Senator McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.

Published Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:18 AM by Doug Kmiec

About Doug Kmiec
Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

12 March, 2008

Hillary Clinton’s Scorched Earth Policy

It’s been so long since I’ve posted anything, I am reticent to believe anyone will necessarily see this. Of course, as you see my writing, you guessed it, I am writing about Geraldine Ferraro’s comments concerning Obama. While it would be nice to believe this is the voice and work of a blue-collar former VP candidate, I cannot help but believe that there isn’t a smidge of top-down work from Clinton’s campaign.

The Clinton’s, in the past, have proven that they are no-hold-barred about conducting a campaign, and methinks that Ferraro’s comments are a diversionary tactic to keep the populace focused on everything aside from another Obama Victory. I’ve heard the media discuss it, and I can’t help but take up the media phrase of late, “Hillary Clinton’s Scorched Earth Policy.”

What Hillary, Bill, and all there surrogates need to understand is that McCain is the only one that benefits from this. Personally, I like McCain a bit, but I am opposed to another Republican Administration. After eight years of Bush, I cannot help but think that the economy and foreign policy need substantial cleaning up. Right now, McCain is not saying anything different than the Bush Administration about taxes or Iraq.

I am always thinking about why I don’t like Hillary, and I am quite sure it is not due to gender. Rather, I think it is due to the perceived right to being President, and the unflinching work she is doing to win it. In the process, she is only ensuring McCain and the GOP’s strength in November. Sure, she can continue to run; however, running with this surreptitious noise that we are getting from Bill in South Carolina with his comments, Geraldine’s yesterday and today, Bill Shaheen (in New Hampshire), Bob Johnson (BET Founder), et al…

I apologize, but I cannot help but think the route that Clinton’s campaign is taking with Obama’s is intentional and managed from the top-down. For that reason, her sneaky behavior, she will not get my vote. If she is the nominee, that being unlikely, she will not get my vote. In the meantime, if she continues to work on behalf of McCain, the Clinton’s have done nothing but turn me away from them.

10 March, 2008

Day One?!



Rather than claim the Economist's blog's work on my own, I thought I would post the link:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/03/back_to_that_experience_thing.cfm

Brilliant!

04 March, 2008

Musing on Nostalgia

There are those things for us that can linger in the back of one’s mind. For some reason, today, I have this ever-present wave of nostalgia washing over me. I can’t say that it’s exclusive to times in Chicago; rather the feeling is more predicated from a glimmering reminder. It’s just quite odd, this feeling of nostalgia.

Sometimes, when I am awash in it, it makes me wonder if it is not missing a time of one’s life, not a setting, or a period for which one loved a certain band—no. No, I think it is missing the innocence of one’s early twenties, or the simplicity of having one girlfriend for multiple months, sharing the same set of friends.

The recollection of the setting doesn’t involve the pain of the time, nor does it involve that time’s complexities. It’s almost as though, in nostalgia, we are able to take a setting in life out of its historical context. Methinks the same sort of thing applies to those feelings we have about past relationships, or things of the like.

While working today, my mind has meandered to years in Champaign-Urbana, Memphis, and Chicago. The thoughts or memories of Chicago have no substance to them; in fact, that could be said of all of aforementioned places—no substance, all fascia. It’s so fascinating how so much of the memory, if one ponders it can be utilizing the right-over-the-left hemisphere of the brain. I suspect that is the case, as it’s all been sensory recollection, not verbal specifics, more faces and scenery.

03 March, 2008

And Frank Rich!

yet another Times' editorial - love this one too - interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02rich.html?em&ex=1204693200&en=e1f57dff8ca605c3&ei=5087%0A

And, please note, yes - I do have a sincere desire for Obama to win, I don't see the press as stating anything other than the obvious. The Senator is a more agreeable candidate than either Clinton or McCain. Even if it seems as though I am wrapped up in "Obamania," one has to admit pragmatically, the other two do nothing but represent status quo positions. Gross.

I respect McCain, but lost some when he started capitulating on Bosh's tax cuts for the wealthy. "But, see, they are working great! That's why we're not going into a recession! Please sir, just some more crack rock! After this hit, I am going to feel so much better, I can finally get better!" Absurd.

Oh Mo-Do, you are my kind of woman!

There is a reason I have a crush on Maureen Dowd, and it’s not just that she has ginger hair; although, truthfully, that doesn’t hurt her cause. No – it’s that she gets why I have a hard time taking in Hillary’s argument, why she has “more experience than Obama.”

If you don’t have time, I’ll simply paste a few choice quotes in this; otherwise, you can go to the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02dowd.html?em&ex=1204693200&en=9695e14b2ffccd1a&ei=5087%0A

“The point can’t be that Hillary is superior to Obama in international crisis management, because she’s done no more of it than he has. She’s only done domestic crisis management, cleaning up after Frisky Bill.”
__________________________________________________________________________________

“On “Nightline” last week, Hillary once more wallowed in gender inequities, asserting that it’s harder for her to run than her opponent — a black man with an exotic name that most Americans hadn’t even heard a year ago.

“Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field,” she said, “but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there.”

Is that how she would deal with dictators, by playing the refs and going before the U.N. to demand: “How come you’re not asking Ahmadinejad these questions first?”

Tangled in her own victimhood, she snipped to Cynthia McFadden that Obama had written in his book that “he’s a blank screen and people of widely different views project what they want to believe onto him.” She said voters were projecting their hopes onto that blank screen even though “he just hasn’t been around long enough.”

In the next breath, asked about the women who feel sorry for her, she said: “I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives on to me, and they see how hard this is. It’s hard. It’s hard being a woman out there.”

So projection is bad with Obama but good with her?”