The Republican Party’s top four Presidential candidates inexplicably skipped a debate on minority issues, ceding the stage and the topic to the second and third tier of the party’s field. GOP loyalists should be gravely concerned about the impact that this snub will have on the party’s attempts to win over African-American and Hispanic voters in the 2008 election cycle. However, of greater concern should be the fact that these candidates willingly surrendered an opportunity to engage voters in a discussion about the future of our nation.
The challenges facing America on the global and domesetic fronts are greater than at any time since the Soviet Union’s collapse signalled the end of the Cold War. US troops and intelligence officers are engaged in a global war against terrorism; across the Pacific, the most populous nation in the world–China–is building a blue water fleet with the intent to project its power and protect its interests around the globe; and here in America, race relations, immigration, and health care reform wait to be addressed by a leadership class that apparently has forgotten that it is they who work for the American people, not the other way around.
America deserves a leader who is unafraid to engage all comers in discussion and debate, no matter the arena and no matter the topic. We are owed a campaign of ideas and inspiration, not one that seeks merely to turn out the base of either party. Sadly, of the four men most likely to be the Republican standard bearer next summer, none saw fit to rise to the challenge this time. This was not only bad politics. This was a silent commentary on the arrogance of power.
Posted by jameskidd under
James Kidd Leave a Comment
“Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator and Republican presidential candidate, has introduced a new bill that would require abortion practitioners to perform an ultrasound and allow women contemplating an abortion to see the pictures of their unborn child. The hope is that it will persuade many women to keep their baby.”
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3344.html
While I applaud the effort and think that this bill would save some lives, I question the effectiveness of it. After all, anyone who’s seen an ultrasound knows that it’s far from crystal clear. Even with the best equipment, a trained technician has to point things out to you that you wouldn’t have caught on your own: “Here’s the head; here’s a hand with five fingers . . .” Because the more the woman sees of the fetus, the less likely she is to go through with the abortion, if the person performing the ultrasound is also the one to be performing the abortion, he/she would not be inclined to look for those things and point them out. He/she is more likely to say, “I can’t see anything; it’s undecipherable.” And the photos shown to the mother would be ones that were taken carelessly.
In short, unless the abortionist is required to do a certain amount of diligence, the abortionist can get around the law pretty easily.
Moreover, this requirement would apply only to mid- to late-term abortions, as doctors won’t do an ultrasound before eight weeks’ gestation. Most abortions are performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy.
A friend sends me this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U
Two things strike me about this video:
(I should say at the outset that I generally favor the free market but am skeptical about its ability to solve the health care crisis.)
First, I see similarities between the tactics of opponents of socialized medicine and those of proponents of gay marriage: (a) They use anecdotal evidence, profiling a poor bloke who was forced to wait x months for a given treatment. In the case of gay marriage, they profile a gay couple that suffers hardship because their union is not legally recognized. Both camps attempt to pull at our heartstrings, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that what’s good for one person or couple is what’s best for the country. (b) They use the courts to accomplish what they can’t attain legislatively. Both camps know that it’s much easier to convince a single judge than it is to persuade the country at large, and it can have more immediate and far-reaching results.
Second, it would seem that if universal health care is really so bad, there would be a movement to get rid of it in countries that have it. But in fact the momentum is going in the other direction: There are proposals to implement the system in countries that don’t have it. Perhaps that’s because (a) people are generally happy with socialized medicine, and (b) it’s generally associated with a higher standard of living.
Now I don’t think universal health care is the entire solution either, but we should recognize disingenuous tactics when we see them.
