I was riding in to work last night and listening to Hannity’s repeat program from Thursday. Perhaps Sean’s biggest fan in NV already heard the show…
He pissed me off by saying that HE was far more open-minded and rational than a Democrat because HE could put the petty issues aside for the good of the country, when discussing issues about the general election.
While Democrat argues with Democrat and Clinton and Obama exchange barbs and slights in the primary count-down, Sean can agree with McCain 85% of the time, and has no issues supporting him, even though he isn’t a “Reagan Conservative” like Sean.
Sean agrees 85% of the time with McCain… and that must be on issues like fighting the War in Iraq and Afghanistan to WIN, building and securing the fence on the border, lower taxes coupled with reduced Government spending to stimulate the economy, and NO ear-marks or pork in new legislation.
It’s the 15% of his platform that he doesn’t agree with McCain on that got me miffed yesterday… Sean said he would continue to fight against McCain’s “liberal” leanings in areas like:
- Closing GITMO detention center
- Rebuilding America’s “image” with the international community
- Re-thinking the GOP position on “environmentalism”
GITMO. Hannity makes the argument that McCain is closing GITMO because of pressure from the liberal crowd here in the US and international pressure from pro-Arab societies in Europe and the Middle East. He says that McCain’s position on “torture” is misguided and will hurt the US in its war on terror.
Let’s be absolutely clear on one thing… McCain has repeatedly said that if the Federal government wants to use such interrogation techniques as “water-boarding” in its effort to gain meaningful intelligence from detainees… then the LAW must be CHANGED to reflect this need. All the man is saying is that as long as it is patently ILLEGAL to use techniques like water-boarding according to established US law, be it US Code of Federal Regulation or the UCMJ… then no agency, facet or arm of the United States Government should be using it.
I don’t think that’s pandering to the “left”, nor do I think it shows a weakness in his national security position… it simply shows that the man feels that NO facet of this government is above the law. Period. If the Feds want to water-board to gain information, change the law so that it is no longer ILLEGAL to do so.
As for closing GITMO detention centers, there are currently 355 detainees at GITMO, and NONE of them have been charged with a crime. ALL have been labeled “enemy combatants”, but none have been given legal representation under US law, and no charges have been filed. The Feds announced last month that 6 of the 355 would remain in the US to face charges dealing with the 9/11 attacks, but all the rest (349) would be released to their respective nations to face charges there… meaning nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Jordan. In the last 5 years, no additional detainees have been taken to GITMO… so these are the last of the 750+ detainees the three camps at GITMO will house in the foreseeable future.
Why NOT send them back to the nations they “belong” to? What are the chances that the Saudis will be more lenient on these men than the US has been? Or Egypt? Or Syria? Why is it wrong to spend tax dollars on supporting Mexican nationals incarcerated in the US for breaking our laws, but perfectly fine to do the same for 349 “enemy combatants” over the last 7 years? If we’re supposed to deport Mexican criminals to Mexico… why not Egyptians to Egypt, or Saudis to Saudi Arabia?
Rebuilding our “image”. I recall stating more than one time within this forum (in all its varied incarnations) that the US should always lead by example when it comes to foreign policy, and we all know this rarely happens. History is replete with points where we said one thing, and did another. These happenings have grown a bit more noticeable over the last 15 years, and this needs to be addressed. Our moral and ethical position CANNOT be based on intention alone, we MUST be able to categorically show that our actions rise to the same level as our intentions at every possible opportunity.
This is an admirable and honest position for McCain to make, and I think he should be applauded for the effort to make this a focal point in his campaign. I can’t think of ONE reasonable or rational argument for NOT changing the very foundation of our foreign policy AND its agency (the State Department) for a “new” century and a new era of international conflict. Especially since so much of that conflict will probably be conducted in unconventional ways against civilian populations.
Environmentalism. As I have stated countless times in the past, this does NOT have to be a four-letter word to the GOP. Rational and reasonable managing of natural resources in a nation that does, indeed, have a finite amount of many vital resources is simply good planning, not pandering to a paranoid fringe. Giving profitable tax relief to companies and manufacturers that can both maintain productivity and reduce pollution or waste is a fantastic way to stimulate an economy AND promote a “greener” America. No concessions need be made to such dubious threats as “global warming”, when simple, measurable means like “cleaner, less polluting” measures can work just as well and go MILES further to make the public sympathetic to the effort. To suggest that ONLY the subscribers to “global warming” are behind an American grass-roots movement to protect and preserve American environmental heritage is simply false… look at the nightmare Reagan had to deal with when he appointed James Watt as Sec. of the Interior in 1981. The man made Ron’s life a nightmare for the next two years, simply be making statements that the public took to mean that “no preservation is needed.” Rational managing of the nation's vast and varied resource base is simply good, long-term planning, and certainly doesn’t mean that profitable and measurable use can’t still be made of these resources now.
The effects that this kind of management can have are plainly visible in organization’s efforts like Ducks Unlimited, the American Whitetail Association, and the Roughed Grouse Society… all of which have promoted and PRODUCED vast improvements to the species they promote and the HUNTERS and GUN-OWNERS that hunt those species. No fewer than 11 species of ducks and geese that bordered on endangered only 35 years ago are now thriving and harvestable nation-wide, thanks to DU… and you simply AREN’T going to find a more CONSERVATIVE group of voters than the members of Ducks Unlimited. I dare you to try…
Nothing that Hannity points out as “flawed” in the McCain platform is flawed to me… and nothing he bases his arguments on seems worth the time it took me to write this rebuttal. I'm not even a Republican, either.
That’s why I can’t stand Hannity…
No comments:
Post a Comment