Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.ampnetmedia.com

Mark R. Levin

NRO Contributing Editor

Getting Reagan Right

Charles Krauthammer misses the crucial distinctions.

By Mark R. Levin
October 26, 2007, 0:17 p.m.
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjQyMg==

I often agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I think this time he is off the mark. What people loved about Ronald Reagan was that he was a statesman, not just another politician. Reagan didn't grant three million illegal aliens amnesty because he was pandering to the Hispanic community, or believed in a pathway to citizenship. He did it because he believed that the other part of the deal, securing the border, would follow. So, he reluctantly accepted what he considered to be a one-time amnesty. Ed Meese has explained this repeatedly. Unfortunately, the security part of the deal faltered. No excuses, but let's get the facts right.

Others have suggested that Reagan flip-flopped on abortion; this is also false. He advocated a health exception (for the life of the mother) which, as he explained later, was exploited to include virtually anything. But he wasn't pro-abortion. Giuliani and Romney were. And they are struggling with it today. Reagan learned that the exception became the rule, and he would oppose abortion of any kind from then on. To compare this with those who emphatically defended abortion on demand (and federal funding no less, in Giuliani's case) is nonsense.

Moreover, Reagan did all he could as president to follow through on his pro-life position. He instituted his Mexico City policy, preventing the use of federal funds for abortions abroad. His administration was directed to deny funds, wherever it could, for abortions. He was also part of an effort, led by Jesse Helms in the Senate, to amend the Constitution. There weren't enough votes, but they tried.

Ignoring all of this, Krauthammer says Reagan gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, which, of course, is true. But he had no idea where they stood on abortion, or how they would rule. Rightly or wrongly, he set no issue-specific litmus test for his judges. But we know he didn't appoint them because he thought they would endorse abortion from the bench. On the contrary — they left the impression with those who vetted them that they were "originalists" and, as it turned out, they mislead everyone.

As for Reagan taking naps, he did. If Thompson does the same, that is quite a smart move. I take them now and then myself and recommend them to others. What counts is what you do when you're awake.

Reagan helped build and lead the modern conservative movement. That can't be said of any of the current Republican candidates. He helped give it substance and voice. He fought the Left in Hollywood. He was an outspoken Barry Goldwater supporter when Goldwater was fairly unpopular with the general public. He took on Gerald Ford, challenging him from the Right. Indeed, his candidacies in 1968, 1976, and 1980 were all ideologically based. And he obviously won in 1980 as the most conservative candidate in modern history. And both as a candidate and president, Reagan constantly spoke of conservative principles, as he had since the mid-to-late 1950s. He was not a recent convert. He used his position to educate the people about government's limits. But he also understood, like Edmund Burke and many others, that changing half a century of liberal government would take time.

So, while he couldn't succeed in every respect as president, and would reach compromises now and then, he tried to push the massive ship of state in the right direction. And he had many successes (too many people focus on the setbacks). He left a legacy that could have been built upon by his successor, but it was not.

Krauthammer never worked for Reagan; I did. That's not a prerequisite for understanding Reagan, but when an opinion-maker is wrong about him, my personal experience of Reagan obliges me to defend him. Krauthammer suggests to me that he still doesn't understand why Reagan was a great leader or the public's love for him. The public had confidence that when Reagan spoke, he meant what he said; He left no room for question about what he believed in, and that he would try to implement policies consistent with his long-held positions.

It's not so much that we long for Reagan, as some dismissively contend (although I note that the candidates themselves invoke his name endlessly as a substitute for their own conservative shortcomings, perceived or otherwise). It is rather that we long for someone who can lead as he did. We don't seek perfection (even if we could define it), and we don't claim Reagan was perfect.

Krauthammer says he's not putting Reagan down. If that is the case, then he nonetheless has a funny way of describing him. But even if Reagan never existed, surely there is some standard by which we judge the candidates. For some of us, that standard is the same standard we used to judge prior candidates, including Reagan. To say all the candidates are fine is to say nothing. To say that major aspects of their records don't square with recent campaign statements is more than nitpicking. Now is the time to be inquisitive, engaged, and discerning. That's what primaries are all about. That's not to say that there aren't worthy candidates in the field. But simply saying they’re worthy is unpersuasive.

This isn't the first election in which a war hero is running for president. We've had war heroes who have made lousy presidents. This isn't the first election involving a successful governor. But they, too, have had mixed presidential records. I would encourage more scrutiny, not less.

As Reagan used to say, "If not now, when; if not us, who?" Take that!


— Mark R. Levin is author of the bestselling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

read Charles Krauthammer's "Who Is Team Captin?" on NRO


=========================================================

Carry on speeding

October 30, 2007
http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/2384/

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has gladdened BMW, Audi, Mercedes and many local tuning mechanics' hearts by rejecting a proposal from her Social Democrat coalition partners who called for a 130kmh/80mph speed limit on the country's motorways.

The proposals for the Autobahn were made by the SPD with the intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but Mrs Merkel said that, "traffic jams are at least as harmful to the climate as speeding."

Thus leaving Germany to remain the destination of choice for all supercar owners wishing to blow their hair back.

Angela Merkel, you're our kind of leader.




=========================================================

GM Takes on New York Times' Tom Friedman -- Again

Date posted: 10-04-2007

DETROIT — General Motors has taken off after New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman yet again, urging Americans to "beware the ideas of Friedman" in a posting on Thursday on the GM FYI blog.
The brouhaha centers around Friedman's October 3 column, "Et Tu, Toyota?" which took the Detroit automakers and the Japanese giant to task for "once again trying to water down efforts by Congress to legislate improved mileage standards for Detroit in the latest draft energy bill."
"What is it about Michigan that seems to encourage assisted suicide?" Friedman wrote, in a reference to Michigan's Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the assisted-suicide advocate who served prison time for helping terminally ill patients end their lives. "But assisting Detroit's suicide seems to be contagious. Everyone wants to get in on it, including Toyota. Toyota, which pioneered the industry-leading, 50-miles-per-gallon Prius hybrid, has joined with the Big Three U.S. automakers in lobbying against the tougher mileage standards in the Senate version of the energy draft bill."
GM fired back in defense of Toyota, with GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson writing, "[We] take issue with some of the poorly aimed shots that Mr. Friedman keeps taking at the auto industry. For starters, there's nothing sinister about Toyota — or anyone else — building trucks. To the unending frustration of Mr. Friedman and a handful of environmentalists, Americans buy trucks.... GM's response is simple — continue to improve the fuel efficiency of all our vehicles, including our trucks.
"We urge Mr. Friedman to step off his soapbox and use his gifts as a reporter to develop a deeper understanding of this complex, fast-moving and vitally important industry," Wilkinson added.
Friedman, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, and GM tangled last year. In an October 4 posting on the GM FastLane blog entitled "Why Tom Friedman Is Still Wrong," Christopher Barger wrote that Friedman is "now disillusioned with Toyota, which only last year he suggested should take over GM, and angry with the rest of the auto industry over pending fuel economy legislation."
Several volleys were exchanged between Friedman and GM in 2006. At one point, the columnist castigated the automaker for "acting irresponsibly by offering unlimited gasoline at $1.99 a gallon for one year to anyone who buys certain of its midsize sedans, big SUVs or gas-guzzling Hummers in California or Florida.
"No should be making a huge gas-guzzling Hummer and no one should be driving one, and no one — certainly not GM — should be subsidizing people to drive them," Friedman wrote.
Steven J. Harris, GM's vice president for global communications, denounced Friedman's argument in a formal statement and on GM's corporate blog.
What this means to you: It's very unusual for an automaker to take off after a journalist. But it's entertaining to watch.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122904
=========================================================

The Significant Difference between Conservative and Libertarian

I have been trying for years now to figure out the real definition of “neo-con," one of the most popular leftist political buzz-words of the 21st century. After reading comments from Ron Paul supporters, I now know what the term means. If you believe in the nanny state, peace through weakness and isolationism, a greater communal good rather than true individual liberty and free-stuff from the treasury instead of real individual freedom, including economic freedom through free-market capitalism, you are a modern liberal Democrat. In the old days, this was the definition of “socialist." If you believe in personal freedom to the point of anarchy, individual liberty to the extreme of social chaos, national isolationism as a form of national security, liberal social policies but conservative fiscal restraint, you are a modern libertarian, and you could be either Republican or Democrat, depending on your mood swings. You are a “swing-voter." If you believe in free-market capitalism, peace through strength, an inherent right to protect and defend not only our borders and our society here, but our entire way of life here and abroad, in the wisdom of taking the fight to our enemies instead of waiting for them to bring the fight to us (again) on our own streets, in morally sound social restraint in order to maintain a decent civil society that does not have to legislate millions to deal with self-induced social ills at great tax-payer expense, in the individual right to earn and keep not take and waste, then you are a modern conservative and you can be found only in the Republican Party, though you do have some odd company there today. You my friend, by today’s definitions, are a “neo-con."

Isolationism in 1776 vs. 2007

In 1776, nations were much smaller, much less technologically equipped. They moved troops by clipper ship, taking months to reach the field of engagement and everybody saw them coming. They fought on designated battle fields, wearing bright colored uniforms, marching under their nation’s flag, following a well established chain of command. They fought with swords, knives and single shot muskets. The range of engagement was only yards in any direction. The isolationist view of national defense worked well when oceans kept battles far from American soil and civilian populations safe from unexpected enemy attack. Can the same rules of international engagement protect American soil and innocent civilians today? This is the real question at the heart of the debate between those who understand why we take the fight to the enemy abroad, and those who prefer to wait for the fight to come to us. In 2007, nearly half of our GDP is exported and nearly half of our national needs are met through imported products. The world is indeed much smaller, and nations and their technologies are in fact much BIGGER. The oceans no longer protect our soil, our people or our way of life. Our enemies do not announce their intentions in advance. They do not take months to move into position with everyone watching. They do not wear any uniform, carry any flag, fight on any designated battle field or distinguish between military and civilian targets, other than they prefer to attack only the weakest of targets. They don’t use conventional weapons, but rather our own freedoms and liberties against us. They can move throughout our society with the same freedom and anonymity that the average American citizen does on a daily basis. A single terror cell member, operating on his own can level an entire U.S. city in seconds and nobody will see him coming. This is exactly why we DO NOT want to fight this war on our soil. The same IED’s (improvised explosive devices) you see killing people in Iraq would be killing innocent Americans right here at home, at best. At worst, raw chemical, biological or nuclear materials can be used to create a “dirty bomb" that could kill thousands or even millions in seconds. If you want to see America become a “police state" in a heartbeat, with American troops carrying out the same types of missions on American streets that they are currently carrying out on the streets of Baghdad, you are on the right track with an isolationist view of how to deal with this very real threat. No intelligence or security expert in the world will tell you any differently. In fact they have shouted this very warning over and over, yet Americans who are not listening will be just as shocked if and when that day arrives, as they were on the morning of September 11th a short six years ago.
We the People -- The Buck Stops Here! By JB Williams on (Aug 31, 07) capitolhillcoffeehouse.com