Second GOP Debate

UPDATE: Full video here. UPDATE 2: Is it just me, or was the subject of Iran conspicuously absent last night?
My random thoughts as I watch:
It seems Fox News is running a far-less scattered debate than the first one: Down-the-line questions focusing on the distinctions between each candidate.
Iraq: Tommy completely dodged the question on how he could force the democratically-elected government to adopt his proposals, instead going into his preprogrammed speech; Hunter is an impressive candidate, but his shot at the others’ lack of military experience was a low blow; Brownback’s “togetherness” angle was lame.
Good lines: McCain’s “I never met a drunken sailor with the imagination of the spenders in Congress,” and Huckabee’s “spending like John Edwards at a beauty salon.”
“Which programs would you cut?” Tommy: Incoherent.
Uncle Ron Paul: he’d get us all killed, but I can’t really fault his sweeping approach to cutting bureaucracy.
Tancredo: plenty of the Republicans we hear have themselves moved to expand government. Correct.
Rudy: “First of all, ‘Rudy McRomney’ wouldn’t be a bad ticket.” OK, not a bad line. Still doesn’t change the lameness of his (also-preprogrammed) list of talking points.
McCain: “Bipartisanship…blah blah blah…”
Romney: Good line about Massachusettes being “so blue you can’t tell if it’s black.”
I’d have to hear his answer again (got distracted by another blog), but did Tommy try to play both ends of the road on embryonic stem cells?
Huckabee: “We value one life as we value all,” as opposed to Islamofascist “culture of death.” Bravo, Governor. Props to Brownback as well, for his answer on rape abortions.
Mitt didn’t really answer the abortion question directly. Come on, you can do better. Mitt on immigration: liked the sentiment, but more specific, please.
McCain: in rebuttal to Romney, ignored the critique of his legislation & instead played the flip-flop card. Smarmy.
Giuliani on immigration: does this man even know how to speak in anything other than soundbytes?
Ron Paul talking up conservatism’s non-interventionist history we’re supposed to return to. Guess what, Ron? Something happened. It’s called world war. And now 9/11 is our fault?
Credit where credit is due: Rudy blasting Ron Paul for his 9/11 line. Bravo, Mayor. But asking for another 30 seconds seemed just a bit much.
Romney: great answer about preventing terroism, Gitmo & keeping terrorists from US lawyers, but I’d like to know what he thinks the difference between “enhanced interrogation” and “torture” is.
Duncan Hunter: Simply “get the information.” I agree.
My reaction to McCain on torture: you think terrorists are gonna be nicer to American captives if we’re nicer to jihadis prisoners? What planet are you on?
Tancredo: If a nuke goes off in America, I’m lookin’ for Jack Bauer. Indeed.
Best performances: Huckabee & Hunter. Mitt comes in third (not as strong as the first time around), and everyone else has generally been kinda “eh,” save the highlights I’ve noted. Having all these guys on together is kind of an interesting contrast, but come on: next time, just have Giuliani, McCain & Romney on. That’s the only real choice we have.
(Oh, and I’m just curious: y’think the commercials are there to give Tommy bathroom breaks?)

Cultures of Corruption

The conservative blog Redstate is taking aim at a potentially-corrupt Republican’s ascension to the House Appropriations Committee:

A popular conservative blog will step up its efforts this week to force Republican leaders to pull Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) from the powerful Appropriations Committee. In addition, the website will begin a coordinated effort to target members of the GOP Steering Committee in order to save the party from electoral disaster in 2008, the editor in chief of the site said Sunday.
“This party of ours must be pruned and it must be pruned by those of us who care about it before meeting the butchers sheers in the hands of the voters again in 2008,” Erick Erickson, editor in chief of http://www.redstate.com wrote to The Hill. “If they refuse to hear that change is needed, we will wipe them out and replace them with new blood that recognizes that a corrupt party rejected by the voters will not be embraced again by the voters until the corruption is purged.”

Question: how many grassroots Democrats can similarly claim to police their own? (To their credit, the
Daily Kos blasted William “The Freezer” Jefferson. However, evidently Harry Reid is off-limits…)

Hey, It’s Hayworth!

The gentleman standing next to me in my profile picture is former Congressman JD Hayworth, Republican of Arizona. I’ve been impressed with his cable news appearances over the years, and when I visited DC two summers ago, I was bowled over by the stirring speech he gave. I had high hopes that he might toss his hat into the presidential race (indeed, he’s the only politician who could get me to jump off the SS Romney—if anybody close to Mitt or JD somehow manages to see this, I’m begging you to PLEASE consider Romney-Hayworth ’08!).

Out of the disastrous ’06 midterms, the loss that hit me the hardest was Hayworth’s, perhaps even more so than Mark Green’s (by the way,
he did not lose because of his immigration stance, as the amnesty crowd claims). So I’ve been trying to find out what he’s been doing post-Capitol Hill.

Finally, we have
an answer:

Former U.S. Congressman J.D. Hayworth will return to his old job Thursday as afternoon host on
KFYI Newstalk 550.

Hayworth, who lost his seat in November to former Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell, will be heard from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the highly coveted afternoon drivetime slot.

He joins a prominent list of conservatives on the Clear Channel subsidiary including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.

“We’ll cut through the clutter of political pollution and offer Phoenician’s common sense during these uncommon times,” said Hayworth in a released statement.


He’s a natural for the job…but I hope he hasn’t shut the door completely on political office. America needs you, JD.

Cultural Crusader

Yesterday, Mitt Romney delivered a powerful speech in front of Massachusetts Citizens for Life:

It is an honor to receive this award.
I recognize that it is awarded for where I am on life, not for where I have been.
I respect the fact that you arrived at this place of principle a long time ago.
And I appreciate the fact that you are inclined to honor someone who arrived here only a few years ago.
I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit.
I follow a long line of converts — George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan. Each of them has made meaningful contributions to this cause.
It is instructive to see the double standard at work here. When a pro-life figure changes to pro-choice, it hardly gets a mention. But when someone becomes pro-life, the pundits go into high dudgeon.
And so, I am humbled and grateful to be welcomed so warmly and openly tonight.
And as many of you know, you were always welcome in my office when I was Governor.
Together we worked arm in arm. And I can promise you this — that will be the case again when I am President.
I am often asked how I, as a conservative Republican, could have been elected in Massachusetts. I tell them that there were three things that helped account for my improbable victory.
First, the state was in a fiscal crisis. A meltdown, of sorts. Beacon Hill couldn’t get budgets done on time. Another big tax hike looked like it was on the way. I promised to balance the budget without raising taxes. And, as you know, together with the legislature, that’s what I did. We eliminated a $3 billion shortfall. And by the time I left, my surpluses had replenished the rainy-day fund to over $2 billion.
Second, we were in a jobs crisis. Massachusetts was losing jobs every month. People were afraid. I went to work to bring jobs back to our state. From the end of the recession, we added 60,000 new jobs. And, we finally got our economic development act together — it was in large measure responsible for the economic growth that we continue to experience even today.
And third, I think that values also played a role in my campaign success. My opponent said she would sign a bill for gay marriage. I said that I would oppose gay marriage and civil unions. My opponent favored bilingual education. I did not. I said that to be successful in America, our kids need to speak the language of America. And as you will surely recall, my opponent wanted to lower the age of consent for an abortion from 18 to 16 — and I did not.
And so, social conservatives, many of them Democrats and Independents, joined fiscal conservatives to elect a Republican.
That being said, I had no inkling that I would find myself in the center of the battlefield on virtually every social issue of our time.
The first battle came when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, by a one vote majority, found a right to same sex marriage in our constitution. I’m sure that John Adams would be surprised.
The Court said that traditional marriage as we have known it, “is rooted in persistent prejudices” and “works a deep and scarring hardship … for no rational reason.”
No rational reason? How about children? Isn’t marriage about the development and nurturing of children? And isn’t a child’s development enhanced by access to both genders, by having both a mother and a father?
I believe that the Court erred because it focused on adults and adult rights.
They should have focused on the rights of children. The ideal setting for the raising of a child is a home with a loving mother and father.

Many of you joined the effort to stop, to block or to slow down this unprecedented Court decision. We took every step we could conceive of, within the law.
First, we pushed for a stay — denied.
Then, we fought for an amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman — lost the vote in the legislature by only 2 votes.
We upheld the 1913 law that prohibited out of state gay couples from marrying here, thus preventing Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage.
And in the final analysis, we went to work to secure a vote of the citizens, a battle that took us to court, with a win. And now we are just one step away from putting it on the ballot.
The issue now is whether a single vote majority of the Court will be allowed to trump the voice of the people in a democracy. If it is, then John Adams would truly be astonished.

By the way, we all learned that the phrase “slippery slope” describes a very real phenomenon. The implications of the marriage decision quickly went well beyond adult marriage. Efforts were made to change birth certificates by removing “mother” and “father” and replacing them with “parent A” and “parent B.” I said no to that. And parents of a child in 2nd grade were told that their son is required to listen to the reading of a book called the “King and the King,” about a prince who marries a prince. The school’s rationale was since gay marriage was legal, there was nothing wrong with such a policy.
And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children. Why? Because the Church favors placements in homes with a mother and a father. Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found right of gay marriage. I immediately drafted and introduced legislation to grant religious liberty protection, but the legislature would not take it up.
I have taken this message to Washington, explaining the far-reaching implications of gay marriage and the need to support a federal marriage amendment. I testified before Congress. I wrote to every US Senator. Unfortunately, several senators from my own party voted against the marriage amendment.
The fight is not over.
In the midst of that battle, another arose. It involved cloning and embryo farming for purposes of research. I studied the subject in great depth. I have high hopes for stem cell research. But for me, a bright moral line is crossed when we create new life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.
That’s why I fought to keep cloning and embryo farming illegal.
It was during this battle on cloning and embryo farming that I began to focus a good deal more of my thinking on abortion.
When I first ran for office, I considered whether this should be a personal decision or whether it should be a societal and government decision. I concluded that I would support the law as it was in place — effectively, a pro-choice position.
And I was wrong.
The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people saw human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed. The slippery slope could soon lead to racks and racks of living human embryos, Brave New World-like, awaiting termination.
What some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity.
And so I publicly acknowledged my error, and joined with you to promote the sanctity of human life.
And my words were matched with my actions. As you know, every time I faced a decision as governor that related to human life, I came down on the side of the sanctity of life.
I fought to ban cloning.
I fought to ban embryo farming.
I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation.
I fought for abstinence education in our schools.
And I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls drugs without prescription, drugs that could be abortive and not just contraceptive.
That is my record on life as your governor.
It was fought against long odds. You know, you go up against those same odds every day. I always appreciated the strong support I received from you, the pro-life community, for these actions.
But not everyone agrees with me. You can’t be a pro-life governor in a pro-choice state without considering that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. And I certainly believe in treating all people with respect and tolerance. It is our job to persuade our fellow citizens of our position.
The problem is there are some people who believe that their views must be imposed on everyone. More and more, the vehicle for this imposition is the courts. Slowly but surely, the courts have taken it upon themselves to be the final arbiters of our lives. They forget that the most fundamental right in a democracy is the right to participate in your own governance.
Make no mistake: abortion and same-sex marriage are not rights to be discovered in the Constitution.
I think Chief Justice John Roberts put it best at his confirmation hearing, when he described the role of a judge. Chief Justice Roberts said, “Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them…and I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
Now that’s the type of Justice that I would appoint to the court.
On the tenth anniversary of Roe v Wade, Ronald Reagan observed that the Court’s decision had not yet settled the abortion debate. It had become “a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.”
More than thirty years later, that is still the case. Numerous court decisions have not settled this question, but have further divided the nation. And Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society.
This cannot continue.
At the heart of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions should ultimately be decided by the people themselves.
We are a decent people who have a commitment to the worth and dignity of every person, ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose.
So these are the challenges that face the next President: strengthening our country and our families, protecting marriage and human life and preserving for our children the true blessings of liberty.
These are noble purposes, worthy of a great people.

The Latest on Rudy

Laura Ingraham gets this week’s “Pundit with Principles” award for (not following Hannity’s lead and) actually grilling Giuliani on abortion.

I’m currently
debating the Mayor’s support for premeditated child homicide at Bloggers4Rudy.

If Rudy “hates” abortion, he’s got some ‘splainin’ to do:
Remarks to NARAL’s “Champions of Choice” Luncheon, and his spin as to why he donated to Planned Parenthood doesn’t hold water. (hat tip: EFM)

Bill Donohue
asks a great question: “If helping pregnant women make choices is the supreme issue for Rudy Giuliani, then he should be able to document all the checks he’s written to support Crisis Pregnancy Centers—not just Planned Parenthood. If he can’t, it is logical to conclude that the only real choice he thinks is worthy of his money is the one which results in the death of innocent human beings. And that would make him a fraud.” (hat tip: K-Lo)

“But he significantly increased adoptions in the Big Apple, right?”
Not so fast.

Oh and by the way, Rudy’s problems aren’t all abortion-related: meet
Bernie Kerik, the elephant in the room (no pun intended).

Domestic Terrorism Averted

“There is no terrorist threat,” Michael Moore told us. Well, big guy, what say you about this?

Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack the Army’s Fort Dix and massacre scores of U.S. soldiers — a plot the FBI says was foiled when the men took a video of themselves firing assault weapons to a store to have the footage put onto a DVD.

The defendants, all men in their 20s from the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East, include a pizza deliveryman suspected of using his job to scout out the military base.

“Today we dodged a bullet. In fact, when you look at the type of weapons that this group was trying to purchase, we may have dodged a lot of bullets,” said FBI agent J.P. Weiss.

“We had a group that was forming a platoon to take on an army. They identified their target, they did their reconnaissance. They had maps. And they were in the process of buying weapons. Luckily, we were able to stop that.”

Authorities said there was no direct evidence connecting them to any international terror organizations such as Al Qaeda. But several of the men said they were ready to kill and die “in the name of Allah,” according to court records.

Their goal was “to kill as many American soldiers as possible” in attacks with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and guns, prosecutors said.

Investigators said they infiltrated the group with an informant well over a year ago and bided their time while they secretly recorded the defendants, five of whom lived in Cherry Hill, a Philadelphia suburb about 20 miles from Fort Dix.

“This is what law enforcement is supposed to do in the post-9/11 era — stay one step ahead of those who are attempting to cause harm to innocent American citizens,” U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie said.

Weiss saluted the unidentified New Jersey store clerk who noticed the suspicious video as the “unsung hero” of the case. “That’s why we’re here today — because of the courage and heroism of that individual,” the FBI agent said.

In addition to plotting the attack on Fort Dix, the defendants spoke of attacking a Navy installation in Philadelphia during the annual Army-Navy football game, and conducted surveillance at other military installations in the region, prosecutors said.

One defendant, Eljvir Duka, was recorded as saying: “In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad.”

[…]

“It doesn’t matter to me whether I get locked up, arrested or get taken away,” another defendant, Serdar Tatar, was alleged to have said. “Or I die, it doesn’t matter. I’m doing it in the name of Allah.”

The men trained by playing paintball in the woods in New Jersey and taking target practice at a firing range in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains, where they had rented a house, authorities said.

They often watched terror training videos, clips featuring Usama bin Laden, a tape containing the last will and testament of some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and tapes of armed attacks on U.S. military personnel, erupting in laughter when one plotter noted that a Marine’s arm was blown off in an ambush, authorities said.

[…]

In court documents, prosecutors said the suspects came to the attention of authorities in January 2006 when a Mount Laurel, N.J., shopkeeper alerted the FBI about a “disturbing” video he had been asked to copy onto a DVD.

The video showed 10 young men in their early 20s “shooting assault weapons at a firing range … while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic ‘Allah Akbar’ (God is great),” the complaint said. The 10 included six of those arrested, authorities said.

By March 2006, the group had been infiltrated by an informant who developed a relationship with Shnewer, and the informant secretly recorded meetings last August, according to court documents.

One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father’s pizzeria and made deliveries to the base, using that opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said.

“Clearly, one of the guys had an intimate knowledge of the base from having been there delivering pizzas,” Christie said.

The men also allegedly conducted surveillance at other area military installations, including Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and a Philadelphia Coast Guard station.

[…]

“If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law,” said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. “But when the government says ‘Islamic militants,’ it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous.”

Some thoughts:

1.) Thank God a desire to avoid “Islamophobia” cries didn’t prevent that shopkeeper from sounding the alarm! I can hear the PC-ers now: “Is it a crime for Muslims to play paintball? You racist!” If he had played by CAIR’s rules, the Fort Dix bloodbath would’ve had a far greater likelihood of success. It needs to be hammered home that liberal “sensitivity” is going to get people killed.

(Yes, I heard about the other shootings reported today. I remember Virginia Tech. There’s plenty of violence that’s not Islam-related, and obviously we have to be ever vigilant about suspicious activity in general. But the point is that we cannot let our desire to be inoffensive smother our survival instinct, and blind us to factors like religion that, yes Virginia, are relevant.)

2.) What if these idiots didn’t record anything in the first place, or weren’t so careless with their words at the shooting range? It’s scary to think this might not have been preventable, and even scarier to consider how sophisticated their planning was, even without al-Qaeda training (if there wasn’t…). Another reason why we have to confront not just terrorist groups, but the ideology of jihad head-on.

3.) A couple of these guys were reportedly in the US illegally—a dire problem on which both parties are MIA.

In the Corner Mark Krikorian has more concerns, while Cliff May sees a hopeful sign. Go read ‘em both.