I took a few moments from studying for finals to browse my latest issue of the National Review. A few interesting excepts:
From The Week:
- So Starving to death is "euphoric" (according to the Los Angeles Times)? Then North Korea must be the happiest nation on earth.
- Even death-row convicts get a last meal.
Call it gallow's humor, if you will. I was personally against government intervention, as was Buckley. As NR points out, however, the federal government, through the Supreme Court, was already involved.
On Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defeinding the Supreme Court's use of foreign law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution:
"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that hte U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," she said. And she's right: Both of these notions are caricatures of conservative propositions that are rooted ina concern for self-government. The discretion of judges to amend the Constitution through creative interpretation has to be limited so that Americans can remain governed by the Constituoion they ratified.
Madison and Hamilton are rolling in their graves. I wonder if Judges like this fall within Sen. Johnson's mainstream?
Mark Steyn's Happy Warrior column, entitled "The Icewoman Cometh" previews Chelsea Clinton's run for governor of North Dakota and stunning victory, with tongue-in-cheek. He does, however, make that case that despite a decade of democratic electoral futility, a President Hillary is a real possibility:
The chances of a Rodham restoration in the White House are better than even. FOr one thing, the salient feature of the Clintons' Democratic party is that it was grand for the Clintons, disastrous for the party: The Dems lost everything-House, Senate, state legislatures, governorships-but somehow Bill and Hill were always the lone exceptions that proved the rule....There isno reason to believe the Clintons' historical immunity to their party's remorseless decay will not continue.
Steyn also points out that if Hillary runs, the press will fall over themselves with a woman candidate. Whereas, if Condoleeza Rice runs, the press would play the race on the issues. Steyn predicts that incremantal gains by the GOP will continue, but warns the a Rodham-Clinton White House is a real possibility.
Speaking of presidential politics, NR has a great bio on South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanford. Although he hasn't made any announcements or indications of running for the White House, this guy is a conservative's dream. If you yearn for the days when the Republican party was not only the "values party" but the party of limited governtment, this guy is for you. If your tired of trying to outbid Democrats (see priscription drug entitlement, No Child Left Behind), this guy is for you.
Sanford is anti-tax and anti-government growth. He is truly frugal. While serving a self-imposed six years in Congress, Sanford slept on a futon in his office and put unused letterhead from a former congresswoman in his fax machine. In fact, his returned over $1 million in unused funds. He ran for Congress, and won, in 1994, campaigning on tax cuts, spending restraint, school choice, and Social Security reform. While in office, he opposed public works projects in his own district. He is not afraid to vote against what he regarded as wasteful spending, including renaming National Airport after Reagan (it already had a name and it would be spendy to change). A reluctant politician (my favorite kind), Stanford term limited himself and had no intention of running for office again. He joined the Air Force Reserve as a logistics officer (he still belongs) but soon was running for Governor where he has vetoed 106 budget measures in an effort to reduce spending. After reading the article, I googled "Draft Sanford" and found this site: http://www.republicanliberty.org/Sanford08/
Recent Comments